Re: Race condition between putback_lru_page and mem_cgroup_move_list

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Hi Balbir-san,

> > I also think zone's lru lock is unnecessary.
> > So, I guess below "it" indicate lock_page_cgroup, not zone lru lock.
> 
> We need zone LRU lock, since the reclaim paths hold them. Not sure if I
> understand why you call zone's LRU lock unnecessary, could you elaborate please?

I tought..

1. in general, one data structure should be protected by one lock.
2. memcgroup lru is protected by mem_cgroup_per_zone::lru_lock.


if zone LRU lock must be held, Why do mem_cgroup_per_zone::lru_lock exit?
it should be removed?


Could you explain detail of "race condition with global reclaim race" ?



> > I think both opinion is correct.
> > unevictable lru related code doesn't require pagevec.
> > 
> > but mem_cgroup_move_lists is used by active/inactive list transition too.
> > then, pagevec is necessary for keeping reclaim throuput.
> > 
> 
> It's on my TODO list. I hope to get to it soon.

Very good news!
Thanks.



--
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>