From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDA6C433DB for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA53619E0 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:33:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4CA53619E0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9CA2F6B0283; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 9A1166B0288; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:33:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 855016B0289; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:33:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0083.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.83]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A1AD6B0283 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35227A759 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:33:22 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77954103444.07.138B21A Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FE8C0007C5 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:33:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1616574800; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=U7QPw54Sva1MphcZlpkpNJXMhrZ3U8GXxYhDgWZUFbc=; b=G8GJz9LKIwSFNYQoOdG0xQmUJAsu5RtWoTb3vaNaC0AnVQnBosQmaxNBQ9rHplTII3fXfh wOILmWxg/1XdjQKMcUZ7FKvfuuLJtUDTOJzpt++DQhHR4AWlpaSOKP6KxAqO2GqBkuTJit I2VwveQ0M45sGylB36QiCuXUpRCQPLA= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47EEBACBF; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:33:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:33:14 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Muchun Song Cc: Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , Shakeel Butt , Vladimir Davydov , LKML , Linux Memory Management List Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix memsw uncharge for root_mem_cgroup Message-ID: References: <20210323145653.25684-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: 1gnzibyftiyixdx8uxfdkx95ydf7c8uk X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 54FE8C0007C5 Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf06; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1616574801-439909 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 24-03-21 12:11:35, Muchun Song wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:04 PM Muchun Song wrote: > > > > The pages aren't accounted at the root level, so we cannot uncharge the > > page to the memsw counter for the root memcg. Fix this. > > > > Fixes: 1f47b61fb407 ("mm: memcontrol: fix swap counter leak on swapout from offline cgroup") > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song > > I am very sorry. I should repent. I suddenly realise the fix is totally > wrong. Because the @memcg cannot be root memcg when > @memcg != @swap_memcg. I am probably blind but I do not see why this would be the case. We have memcg != swap_memcg in this branch but we do not know the neither of the two is root_mem_cgroup, no? If we did knot that we wouldn't have to check for swap_memcg != root_mem_cgroup. Or do I miss something? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs