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=-12.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no 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 1ACC3C433E2 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:32:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D81521D7F for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:32:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="hXt2sJaD" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5D81521D7F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4C27A8E0003; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 20:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 49B768E0001; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 20:32:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 38B3B8E0003; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 20:32:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0118.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.118]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B4B8E0001 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 20:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D041E180AD807 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77245276206.27.band27_3a01e6c270e1 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94993D668 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: band27_3a01e6c270e1 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7471 Received: from mail-qk1-f196.google.com (mail-qk1-f196.google.com [209.85.222.196]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f196.google.com with SMTP id o16so4342989qkj.10 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 17:32:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=a2Gw2QTQELKkuv4WuRMTiaWGDMDx+OUJI/W2YlhQu1g=; b=hXt2sJaDB69f3HSWBntMKHKu2u6GbGPI56g1GWVWgEWffWRmRF/46fjhjzr4y+kjSS olae3KV2INU6xY+5nmScaQwuyflGf/29D3hqz+AwidEpBRlgxwyecVGF+cVfQPTtLVoI FqlW4hqo2j4lAXBkqf4P7uucl5pqZpkaibL/ASfdbjENd1k5Lj2lQAZYgMjhdfrXfQ/G yabuHDKWP5Zd+KUB09u+iw39GatHXuF+7hFxQmBrzlDN1pJSILYoaj+goqHr9cPUO2WX oeenuvj38miM7TkbMjGFMmJyXDGvcmQoD8deSnstcoxJQk/SZIv/p9q8mFYHuaIS0uc8 Sg6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=a2Gw2QTQELKkuv4WuRMTiaWGDMDx+OUJI/W2YlhQu1g=; b=EkDCh2TB4RjbWFzdKPoKzJ6BV+7FLKVyH3p5R/6/xD/BSXFQ6bqrw8k3Mc+vqKZ/qJ yvSxlZSTu6K/A1FBAyGe2YyvkL/+cu8lnXjBZ5A0op48ME6FM0O22AUjfhlFrfqprNKr KvRCxYPnLJhWZlfjSGC8mD9XGeZ1HhF9UTQ/XPvUS+KSZAmklUqsINiq/wvIgDyBRpJT Joi/sSYPJyu/R66OvX7kOjCyLkyO5pCkhcVUWVqlNSuktfC6Mo7DAh8xy/Ux+tfQsVHO nyMgjqjXNb5gOWeAnvkB7jFhTz62u0XDfRZjhsYMqmsjKqZzKI9Z/Tqw2/cSd4/kjrkT LLDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QllRTmlMclMor4VukYKfwYPYmKKWvUvH96WwwqJ4g/OF8Dpck oqBWiZftDVWsTRVdsX/Ut/pisw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyF87ooDKnFqIaEGdhP2rgIRd+1mRdTS3gXo69eGiqrL3k3PYHB6g0UOzXsGTOXRmPbTwWZUg== X-Received: by 2002:a37:ac08:: with SMTP id e8mr5465238qkm.158.1599697962163; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 17:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eggly.attlocal.net (172-10-233-147.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [172.10.233.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p68sm4427778qka.78.2020.09.09.17.32.38 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Sep 2020 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: Alexander Duyck cc: Hugh Dickins , Alex Shi , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Daniel Jordan , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , kbuild test robot , linux-mm , LKML , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt , Joonsoo Kim , Wei Yang , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Rong Chen , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , shy828301@gmail.com, Vlastimil Babka , Minchan Kim , Qian Cai Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/32] per memcg lru_lock: reviews In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1598273705-69124-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20200824114204.cc796ca182db95809dd70a47@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A94993D668 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 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, 9 Sep 2020, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:41 PM Hugh Dickins wrote: > > [PATCH v18 28/32] mm/compaction: Drop locked from isolate_migratepages_block > > Most of this consists of replacing "locked" by "lruvec", which is good: > > but please fold those changes back into 20/32 (or would it be 17/32? > > I've not yet looked into the relationship between those two), so we > > can then see more clearly what change this 28/32 (will need renaming!) > > actually makes, to use lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(). That may be a > > good change, but it's mixed up with the "locked"->"lruvec" at present, > > and I think you could have just used lruvec for locked all along > > (but of course there's a place where you'll need new_lruvec too). > > I am good with my patch being folded in. No need to keep it separate. Thanks. Though it was only the "locked"->"lruvec" changes I was suggesting to fold back, to minimize the diff, so that we could see your use of lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock() more clearly - you had not introduced that function at the stage of the earlier patches. But now that I stare at it again, using lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock() there doesn't look like an advantage to me: when it decides no, the same calculation is made all over again in mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(), whereas the code before only had to calculate it once. So, the code before looks better to me: I wonder, do you think that rcu_read_lock() is more expensive than I think it? There can be debug instrumentation that makes it heavier, but by itself it is very cheap (by design) - not worth branching around. > > > [PATCH v18 29/32] mm: Identify compound pages sooner in isolate_migratepages_block > > NAK. I agree that isolate_migratepages_block() looks nicer this way, but > > take a look at prep_new_page() in mm/page_alloc.c: post_alloc_hook() is > > where set_page_refcounted() changes page->_refcount from 0 to 1, allowing > > a racing get_page_unless_zero() to succeed; then later prep_compound_page() > > is where PageHead and PageTails get set. So there's a small race window in > > which this patch could deliver a compound page when it should not. > > So the main motivation for the patch was to avoid the case where we > are having to reset the LRU flag. That would be satisfying. Not necessary, but I agree satisfying. Maybe depends also on your "skip" change, which I've not looked at yet? > One question I would have is what if > we swapped the code block with the __isolate_lru_page_prepare section? > WIth that we would be taking a reference on the page, then verifying > the LRU flag is set, and then testing for compound page flag bit. > Would doing that close the race window since the LRU flag being set > should indicate that the allocation has already been completed has it > not? Yes, I think that would be safe, and would look better. But I am very hesitant to give snap assurances here (I've twice missed out a vital PageLRU check from this sequence myself): it is very easy to deceive myself and only see it later. If you can see a bug in what's there before these patches, certainly we need to fix it. But adding non-essential patches to the already overlong series risks delaying it. Hugh