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=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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 D60C7C432C0 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB6E207FD for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="MsGNoi87" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8BB6E207FD 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 2741F6B0008; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:27:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 225756B000A; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:27:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 161926B000C; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:27:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0114.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.114]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A0E6B0008 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:27:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 977DE52A7 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:27:39 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76195481838.25.thing99_7d04f02dff929 X-HE-Tag: thing99_7d04f02dff929 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6377 Received: from mail-ot1-f66.google.com (mail-ot1-f66.google.com [209.85.210.66]) by imf36.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:27:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-f66.google.com with SMTP id c19so13291105otr.11 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:27:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ehtg0LDgFByK5WRliTFTt8kMCURVP50x4sdG0deprfY=; b=MsGNoi87guRmgvoKPI/D/lOK0M/mezTFZNaBeRkMe12Xdy9kJ4sQT0icrrtk/cQ7I+ XoOUItIX1FSBnkYcrZNSLWVdkvbyYY40szlADlj3lWhFlS5quaL3NVAC+VY+2TVDe7jI KJ+irc2cGqgmeHCwls2VTypiKNL4znvvZVBq7mEG+h2OaXeYPNK1I5f176snrGp3GBXx B8P0Z1NJcl6VH8gT+6fWXSAYEvX+5xYGf7Dpzb4m5qVgjkm4VYf1mvMik/y5MBs39Mlc IptXJd/rvAlz7G/M0cIit1TcxUUhwgZJZwIepPVz//Hd5W1aQ7RNB1qVciD6Jo0S4AlO 3PJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ehtg0LDgFByK5WRliTFTt8kMCURVP50x4sdG0deprfY=; b=dE0evi9rkTURzhhJBvRWFaiPkhB/ti3RWCyBP9wi51lCQB22MqUwzZzATXlQ+hOoc7 LbWc7Dd2brMQcWrX7K2nVyCatGOjg5VbOI4N/82ROhlzqIcBb6VZ6gmm3wS5YyYfyUjy YAx1qduMwY0PbxSqYq5oWW0HzGr1l3Rw9HtszcjT0/TMdFM7tAL2GG+81hmxTXHCQpZA MgUetbXankvXV2YK+DG0mdQ8AEeKuArnxJLDArrf2Jm+fnJAmAsdUty5jzTQ3HU/uS9c y3FxQgEwgPPZbITl/phFJSmaJjlhIWpc6jW4vUUk2Tyc81pnXBS/To6j2I1QAT1tQpgs osBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVLlS3V6gXNCsetpnqK4/yWtNFQGNqGKoKucp7oLd+l7DG3bE0J XiYpD5kZO6nvbqjAEAA4iYivxNxj/lylw2GRLi3QZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxpNOnsfH70r6wlFMNUcWUSE7NqnT2MNrFaRB7UYaM0KYhnvGDb5WggsU+yxs0nW8YmcyUasGizxzAArT0Llgg= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3982:: with SMTP id y2mr21401811otb.191.1574702857225; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:27:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1574166203-151975-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <1574166203-151975-4-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20191119160456.GD382712@cmpxchg.org> <20191121220613.GB487872@cmpxchg.org> <20191122161652.GA489821@cmpxchg.org> In-Reply-To: From: Shakeel Butt Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:27:25 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock To: Alex Shi Cc: Johannes Weiner , Cgroups , LKML , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Hugh Dickins , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Daniel Jordan , Yang Shi , Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Roman Gushchin , Chris Down , Thomas Gleixner , Vlastimil Babka , Qian Cai , Andrey Ryabinin , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= , Andrea Arcangeli , David Rientjes , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , swkhack , "Potyra, Stefan" , Mike Rapoport , Stephen Rothwell , Colin Ian King , Jason Gunthorpe , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Peng Fan , Nikolay Borisov , Ira Weiny , Kirill Tkhai , Yafang Shao Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:26 AM Alex Shi wrote: > > > > > > But that leaves me with one more worry: compaction. We locked out > > charge moving now, so between that and knowing that the page is alive, > > we have page->mem_cgroup stable. But compaction doesn't know whether > > the page is alive - it comes from a pfn and finds out using PageLRU. > > > > In the current code, pgdat->lru_lock remains the same before and after > > the page is charged to a cgroup, so once compaction has that locked > > and it observes PageLRU, it can go ahead and isolate the page. > > > > But lruvec->lru_lock changes during charging, and then compaction may > > hold the wrong lock during isolation: > > > > compaction: generic_file_buffered_read: > > > > page_cache_alloc() > > > > !PageBuddy() > > > > lock_page_lruvec(page) > > lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec() > > spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock) > > if lruvec != mem_cgroup_page_lruvec() > > goto again > > > > add_to_page_cache_lru() > > mem_cgroup_commit_charge() > > page->mem_cgroup = foo > > lru_cache_add() > > __pagevec_lru_add() > > SetPageLRU() > > > > if PageLRU(page): > > __isolate_lru_page() > > > > I don't see what prevents the lruvec from changing under compaction, > > neither in your patches nor in Hugh's. Maybe I'm missing something? > > > > Hi Johannes, > > It looks my patch do the lruvec recheck/relock after PageLRU in compaction.c. > It should be fine for your question. So I will try more testing after all changes. Actually no, unless PageLRU check and taking lruvec lock are atomic, the race mentioned by Johannes still exist. Shakeel