Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug: run lru_add_drain_all() on each cpu

[Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 22:25 +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> offline_pages() calls lru_add_drain_all() followed by drain_all_pages().
> While drain_all_pages() works on each cpu, lru_add_drain_all() only runs
> on the current cpu for architectures w/o CONFIG_NUMA.

I'm a bit confused why this is.  Is this because the LRUs are per-zone
and we expected !CONFIG_NUMA systems to only have LRUs sitting on the
same (only) node as the current CPU?

This doesn't make any sense, though.  The pagevecs that
drain_cpu_pagevecs() actually empties out are per-cpu.

> This let us run
> into the BUG_ON(!PageBuddy(page)) in __offline_isolated_pages() during
> memory hotplug stress test on s390. The page in question was still on the
> pcp list, because of a race with lru_add_drain_all() and drain_all_pages()
> on different cpus.
> 
> This is fixed with this patch by adding CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE to the
> lru_add_drain_all() #ifdef, to let it run on each cpu.

This doesn't seem right to me.  CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE doesn't change
the layout of the LRUs, unlike NUMA or UNEVICTABLE_LRU.  So, I think
this bug is more due to the hotremove code mis-expecting behavior out of
lru_add_drain_all().

Why does this not affect the other lru_add_drain_all() users?

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>