Re: [patch 13/13] mm: memcontrol: rewrite uncharge API
From: Johannes Weiner <hidden>
Date: 2014-07-15 19:05:14
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
Subsystem:
memory management, memory management - memory policy and migration, the rest · Maintainers:
Andrew Morton, David Hildenbrand, Linus Torvalds
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 02:43:58PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 01:34:39PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:07:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:quoted
On Tue 15-07-14 11:55:37, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:quoted
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:40:45PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: ...quoted
diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c index a98f48626359..3074210f245d 100644 --- a/mm/swap.c +++ b/mm/swap.c@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ static void __page_cache_release(struct page *page) del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_off_lru(page)); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lru_lock, flags); } + mem_cgroup_uncharge(page); } static void __put_single_page(struct page *page)This seems to cause a list breakage in hstate->hugepage_activelist when freeing a hugetlbfs page.This looks like a fall out from http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=140475936311294&w=2 I didn't get to review this one but the easiest fix seems to be check HugePage and do not call uncharge.Yes, that makes sense. I'm also moving the uncharge call into __put_single_page() and __put_compound_page() so that PageHuge(), a function call, only needs to be checked for compound pages.quoted
quoted
For hugetlbfs, we uncharge in free_huge_page() which is called after __page_cache_release(), so I think that we don't have to uncharge here. In my testing, moving mem_cgroup_uncharge() inside if (PageLRU) block fixed the problem, so if that works for you, could you fold the change into your patch?Memcg pages that *do* need uncharging might not necessarily be on the LRU list.OK.quoted
Does the following work for you?Unfortunately, with this change I saw the following bug message when stressing with hugepage migration. move_to_new_page() is called by unmap_and_move_huge_page() too, so we need some hugetlb related code around mem_cgroup_migrate().
Can we just move hugetlb_cgroup_migrate() into move_to_new_page()? It doesn't seem to be dependent of any page-specific state.
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index 7f5a42403fae..219da52d2f43 100644
--- a/mm/migrate.c
+++ b/mm/migrate.c@@ -781,7 +781,10 @@ static int move_to_new_page(struct page *newpage, struct page *page, if (!PageAnon(newpage)) newpage->mapping = NULL; } else { - mem_cgroup_migrate(page, newpage, false); + if (PageHuge(page)) + hugetlb_cgroup_migrate(hpage, new_hpage); + else + mem_cgroup_migrate(page, newpage, false); if (remap_swapcache) remove_migration_ptes(page, newpage); if (!PageAnon(page))
@@ -1064,9 +1067,6 @@ static int unmap_and_move_huge_page(new_page_t get_new_page, if (anon_vma) put_anon_vma(anon_vma); - if (rc == MIGRATEPAGE_SUCCESS) - hugetlb_cgroup_migrate(hpage, new_hpage); - unlock_page(hpage); out: if (rc != -EAGAIN)