From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mgorman@techsingularity.net, tj@kernel.org, hughd@google.com,
khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com,
yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
"Vladimir Davydov" <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
"Roman Gushchin" <guro@fb.com>,
"Shakeel Butt" <shakeelb@google.com>,
"Chris Down" <chris@chrisdown.name>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>, "Qian Cai" <cai@lca.pw>,
"Andrey Ryabinin" <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
"Andrea Arcangeli" <aarcange@redhat.com>,
"David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
swkhack <swkhack@gmail.com>,
"Potyra, Stefan" <Stefan.Potyra@elektrobit.com>,
"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
"Colin Ian King" <colin.king@canonical.com>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
"Peng Fan" <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
"Nikolay Borisov" <nborisov@suse.com>,
"Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
"Kirill Tkhai" <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
"Yafang Shao" <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 04:14:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191118121451.GG20752@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0bfa9a03-b095-df83-9cfd-146da9aab89a@linux.alibaba.com>
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:55:43PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> 在 2019/11/16 下午12:38, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:15:02AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> This is the main patch to replace per node lru_lock with per memcg
> >> lruvec lock. It also fold the irqsave flags into lruvec.
> >
> > I have to say, I don't love the part where we fold the irqsave flags
> > into the lruvec. I know it saves us an argument, but it opens up the
> > possibility of mismatched expectations. eg we currently have:
> >
> > static void __split_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
> > struct lruvec *lruvec, pgoff_t end)
> > {
> > ...
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lruvec->lru_lock, lruvec->irqflags);
> >
> > so if we introduce a new caller, we have to be certain that this caller
> > is also using lock_page_lruvec_irqsave() and not lock_page_lruvec_irq().
> > I can't think of a way to make the compiler enforce that, and if we don't,
> > then we can get some odd crashes with interrupts being unexpectedly
> > enabled or disabled, depending on how ->irqflags was used last.
> >
> > So it makes the code more subtle. And that's not a good thing.
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Thanks for comments!
>
> Here, the irqflags is bound, and belong to lruvec, merging them into together helps us to take them as whole, and thus reduce a unnecessary code clues.
It's not bound to the lruvec, though. Call chain A uses it and call chain
B doesn't. If it was always used by every call chain, I'd see your point,
but we have call chains which don't use it, and so it adds complexity.
> As your concern for a 'new' caller, since __split_huge_page is a static helper here, no distub for anyothers.
Even though it's static, there may be other callers within the same file.
Or somebody may decide to make it non-static in the future. I think it's
actually clearer to keep the irqflags as a separate parameter.
> >> +static inline struct lruvec *lock_page_lruvec_irq(struct page *page,
> >> + struct pglist_data *pgdat)
> >> +{
> >> + struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
> >> +
> >> + spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> >> +
> >> + return lruvec;
> >> +}
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +static struct lruvec *lock_page_lru(struct page *page, int *isolated)
> >> {
> >> pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
> >> + struct lruvec *lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page, pgdat);
> >>
> >> - spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> >> if (PageLRU(page)) {
> >> - struct lruvec *lruvec;
> >>
> >> - lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
> >> ClearPageLRU(page);
> >> del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page));
> >> *isolated = 1;
> >> } else
> >> *isolated = 0;
> >> +
> >> + return lruvec;
> >> }
> >
> > But what if the page is !PageLRU? What lruvec did we just lock?
>
> like original pgdat->lru_lock, we need the lock from PageLRU racing. And it the lruvec which the page should be.
>
>
> > According to the comments on mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(),
> >
> > * This function is only safe when following the LRU page isolation
> > * and putback protocol: the LRU lock must be held, and the page must
> > * either be PageLRU() or the caller must have isolated/allocated it.
> >
> > and now it's being called in order to find out which LRU lock to take.
> > So this comment needs to be updated, if it's wrong, or this patch has
> > a race.
>
>
> Yes, the function reminder is a bit misunderstanding with new patch, How about the following changes:
>
> - * This function is only safe when following the LRU page isolation
> - * and putback protocol: the LRU lock must be held, and the page must
> - * either be PageLRU() or the caller must have isolated/allocated it.
> + * The caller needs to grantee the page's mem_cgroup is undisturbed during
> + * using. That could be done by lock_page_memcg or lock_page_lruvec.
I don't understand how lock_page_lruvec makes this guarantee. I'll look
at the code again and see if I can understand that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-18 12:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-16 3:14 [PATCH v3 0/8] per lruvec lru_lock for memcg Alex Shi
2019-11-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] mm/lru: add per lruvec lock " Alex Shi
2019-11-16 6:28 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-11-18 2:44 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-18 12:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-18 12:37 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-19 10:05 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] mm/lruvec: add irqsave flags into lruvec struct Alex Shi
2019-11-16 6:31 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-11-18 2:52 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-22 6:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock Alex Shi
2019-11-16 4:38 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-18 11:55 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-18 12:14 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2019-11-18 12:31 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-18 12:34 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-19 10:14 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-16 7:03 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-11-18 12:23 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-18 12:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-19 10:08 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-18 16:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-11-19 10:04 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-19 2:10 ` Daniel Jordan
2019-11-19 10:10 ` Alex Shi
2019-11-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] mm/lru: only change the lru_lock iff page's lruvec is different Alex Shi
2019-11-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] mm/pgdat: remove pgdat lru_lock Alex Shi
2019-11-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] mm/lru: likely enhancement Alex Shi
2019-11-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] mm/lru: revise the comments of lru_lock Alex Shi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191118121451.GG20752@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=Stefan.Potyra@elektrobit.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=colin.king@canonical.com \
--cc=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=nborisov@suse.com \
--cc=peng.fan@nxp.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=swkhack@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).