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=-7.5 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 0131EC433DF for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 01:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6638D2072D for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 01:26:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6638D2072D 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 1579A90001E; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0E16D8D0002; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:26:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id F143090001E; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:26:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0158.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.158]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93978D0002 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32401EE6 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 01:26:36 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77187351192.30.self08_3d1678427057 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C19A180B3AA7 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 01:26:36 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: self08_3d1678427057 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2523 Received: from out30-57.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-57.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.57]) by imf40.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 01:26:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R261e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e01355;MF=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=11;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0U6n39Zm_1598318789; Received: from IT-FVFX43SYHV2H.local(mailfrom:alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0U6n39Zm_1598318789) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:26:31 +0800 Subject: Re: [Resend PATCH 1/6] mm/memcg: warning on !memcg after readahead page charged To: Michal Hocko , Qian Cai Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nao.horiguchi@gmail.com, osalvador@suse.de, mike.kravetz@oracle.com References: <1597144232-11370-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20200820145850.GA4622@lca.pw> <20200821080127.GD32537@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200821123934.GA4314@lca.pw> <20200821134842.GF32537@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200824151013.GB3415@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Alex Shi Message-ID: <12425e06-38ce-7ff4-28ce-b0418353fc67@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:25:01 +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: <20200824151013.GB3415@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7C19A180B3AA7 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000059, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: reproduce using our linux-mm random bug collection on NUMA systems. >> >> OK, I must have missed that this was on ppc. The order makes more sense >> now. I will have a look at this next week. > > OK, so I've had a look and I know what's going on there. The > move_pages12 is migrating hugetlb pages. Those are not charged to any > memcg. We have completely missed this case. There are two ways going > around that. Drop the warning and update the comment so that we do not > forget about that or special case hugetlb pages. > > I think the first option is better. > Hi Michal, Compare to ignore the warning which is designed to give, seems addressing the hugetlb out of charge issue is a better solution, otherwise the memcg memory usage is out of control on hugetlb, is that right? Thanks Alex