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=-6.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 0BD0FC433DF for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 01:00:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBB6207FC for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 01:00:31 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org ACBB6207FC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E94436B0010; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E1E646B0022; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:00:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CE5966B0023; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:00:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0066.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.66]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84006B0010 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2018106F0E for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 01:00:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77089307820.30.drum44_2b0fa6726f6e Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D94180B45DD for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 01:00:30 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: drum44_2b0fa6726f6e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5298 Received: from out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.130]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 01:00:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R561e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04357;MF=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=21;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0U46Ptxs_1595984420; Received: from IT-FVFX43SYHV2H.lan(mailfrom:alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0U46Ptxs_1595984420) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:00:21 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 17/21] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock To: Alexander Duyck Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Hugh Dickins , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Daniel Jordan , Yang Shi , 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 References: <1595681998-19193-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <1595681998-19193-18-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> From: Alex Shi Message-ID: <09aeced7-cc36-0c9a-d40b-451db9dc54cc@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:00:06 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 42D94180B45DD X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: =E5=9C=A8 2020/7/28 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8810:54, Alexander Duyck =E5=86=99=E9= =81=93: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:20 AM Alex Shi w= rote: >> >> >> >> =E5=9C=A8 2020/7/28 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=887:34, Alexander Duyck =E5=86=99=E9= =81=93: >>>> @@ -1876,6 +1876,12 @@ static unsigned noinline_for_stack move_pages= _to_lru(struct lruvec *lruvec, >>>> * list_add(&= page->lru,) >>>> * list_add(&page->lru,) //corrupt >>>> */ >>>> + new_lruvec =3D mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgd= at(page)); >>>> + if (new_lruvec !=3D lruvec) { >>>> + if (lruvec) >>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock); >>>> + lruvec =3D lock_page_lruvec_irq(page); >>>> + } >>>> SetPageLRU(page); >>>> >>>> if (unlikely(put_page_testzero(page))) { >>> I was going through the code of the entire patch set and I noticed >>> these changes in move_pages_to_lru. What is the reason for adding the >>> new_lruvec logic? My understanding is that we are moving the pages to >>> the lruvec provided are we not?If so why do we need to add code to ge= t >>> a new lruvec? The code itself seems to stand out from the rest of the >>> patch as it is introducing new code instead of replacing existing >>> locking code, and it doesn't match up with the description of what >>> this function is supposed to do since it changes the lruvec. >> >> this new_lruvec is the replacement of removed line, as following code: >>>> - lruvec =3D mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat); >> This recheck is for the page move the root memcg, otherwise it cause t= he bug: >=20 > Okay, now I see where the issue is. You moved this code so now it has > a different effect than it did before. You are relocking things before > you needed to. Don't forget that when you came into this function you > already had the lock. In addition the patch is broken as it currently > stands as you aren't using similar logic in the code just above this > addition if you encounter an evictable page. As a result this is > really difficult to review as there are subtle bugs here. Why you think its a bug? the relock only happens if locked lruvec is diff= erent. and unlock the old one. >=20 > I suppose the correct fix is to get rid of this line, but it should > be placed everywhere the original function was calling > spin_lock_irq(). >=20 > In addition I would consider changing the arguments/documentation for > move_pages_to_lru. You aren't moving the pages to lruvec, so there is > probably no need to pass that as an argument. Instead I would pass > pgdat since that isn't going to be moving and is the only thing you > actually derive based on the original lruvec. yes, The comments should be changed with the line was introduced from lon= g ago. :) Anyway, I am wondering if it worth a v18 version resend? >=20