From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C40717BB5 for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 16:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716307435; cv=none; b=J79D+rsYeoZE+wMUDxzBlRkOeYL+HVitGiPjlBWrnxP3//o1zJXliRRne/10lajYe2YHXDM0ggHnovFg+Zr9uL7Ja4WX25qIYx0jdmM1FPRmBGryaQjCqHHO5/upVY+B4KuJHqA7lmmZipbESmVX6EI1ZCezEIeQii+xQbGEfG0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716307435; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hDHrQ/d00J5HbIDBqAicthLTutc0tItVwSHIRkHTJNs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GCeQfMHm2FmUdGUnfE3aNjuIXqyvcApmiDqFd1BpJXUYx0KzutVOSrFpkZgQgN94fDjMPvmeigNUDjt2pqwaSBKXz9KPUDZ3xQSYO/1REcaM98HBte3p2i/MPwPoF0yZkP4Ne/2n2ati6tA29MYC/x+1rlVwPqHauw8+mWXedd0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=bJvYEzXj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=bJvYEzXj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="bJvYEzXj"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="bJvYEzXj" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A21EF34850; Tue, 21 May 2024 16:03:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1716307431; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6xNgyl+2IoOjYGw//Y70hdG7G3C0dBJQyHPBEOEcFK8=; b=bJvYEzXjz4m666AkTXA36SaU0UA2YQtttseafJhAcNhoPNVipM8Vr0D6dgtMKSHII26ehz 1PvyB96VjO3C8NjggOqS/98RulKsT1YigHNM4mLXNZGrBn7Mjl2S7szOonfYISPonRwd1V tL0SNaWTK5ydko0vdiCxGkwf5guCXLg= Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=bJvYEzXj DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1716307431; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6xNgyl+2IoOjYGw//Y70hdG7G3C0dBJQyHPBEOEcFK8=; b=bJvYEzXjz4m666AkTXA36SaU0UA2YQtttseafJhAcNhoPNVipM8Vr0D6dgtMKSHII26ehz 1PvyB96VjO3C8NjggOqS/98RulKsT1YigHNM4mLXNZGrBn7Mjl2S7szOonfYISPonRwd1V tL0SNaWTK5ydko0vdiCxGkwf5guCXLg= Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8926713A1E; Tue, 21 May 2024 16:03:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id yUypHufFTGaaJQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 21 May 2024 16:03:51 +0000 Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 18:03:45 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Kefeng Wang , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Uladzislau Rezki , Christoph Hellwig , Lorenzo Stoakes Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: remove page_memcg() Message-ID: References: <20240521131556.142176-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cgroups@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.01 X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A21EF34850 X-Spam-Level: X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.01 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.98%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.com:s=susede1]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.com:s=susede1]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RBL_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; SPAMHAUS_XBL(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWELVE(0.00)[12]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT(0.00)[gmail.com]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[huawei.com,linux-foundation.org,cmpxchg.org,linux.dev,kvack.org,vger.kernel.org,gmail.com,infradead.org]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167:received]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.com:+]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.com:dkim] On Tue 21-05-24 15:44:21, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 09:15:56PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > The page_memcg() only called by mod_memcg_page_state(), so squash it to > > cleanup page_memcg(). > > This isn't wrong, except that the entire usage of memcg is wrong in the > only two callers of mod_memcg_page_state(): > > $ git grep mod_memcg_page_state > include/linux/memcontrol.h:static inline void mod_memcg_page_state(struct page *page, > include/linux/memcontrol.h:static inline void mod_memcg_page_state(struct page *page, > mm/vmalloc.c: mod_memcg_page_state(page, MEMCG_VMALLOC, -1); > mm/vmalloc.c: mod_memcg_page_state(area->pages[i], MEMCG_VMALLOC, 1); > > The memcg should not be attached to the individual pages that make up a > vmalloc allocation. Rather, it should be managed by the vmalloc > allocation itself. I don't have the knowledge to poke around inside > vmalloc right now, but maybe somebody else could take that on. This would make sense as a follow up. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs