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=-10.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 99C13C433DB for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 22:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D5F64DCF for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 22:34:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 29D5F64DCF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 82ABF6B0005; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:34:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7DA2C6B006C; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:34:16 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 6F1256B006E; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:34:16 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0217.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.217]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58FA96B0005 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:34:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173A4824805A for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 22:34:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77800184112.19.kiss27_1016bc22760b Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E414E1AD7FB for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 22:34:15 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: kiss27_1016bc22760b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2898 Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 22:34:15 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: yCUlUnqYSMUzBpcUZ80FDdPJIM802rE3jIs41l+2isluoOw3Tj7Vj8yAXXsRhhg5PQlEsekUgi Shx+aPORKTGQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9890"; a="182037892" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,166,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="182037892" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2021 14:34:08 -0800 IronPort-SDR: +/4lDtE6xcDGA0a9zhq3pbGtdjQUwq7fBvn/8iF/utwH12XhbXOrnCM5APNHhz/h6lNzmZGxvQ 68gV8XdX8xUg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,166,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="436430938" Received: from schen9-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.251.26.185]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2021 14:34:08 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Dave Hansen , Ying Huang , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <3b6e4e9aa8b3ee1466269baf23ed82d90a8f791c.1612902157.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> From: Tim Chen Message-ID: <3445ebcd-bc69-ec6e-8995-c95753b5c4a7@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:34:07 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 2/9/21 2:22 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hello Tim, > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:29:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: >> @@ -6849,7 +6850,9 @@ static void uncharge_page(struct page *page, struct uncharge_gather *ug) >> * exclusive access to the page. >> */ >> >> - if (ug->memcg != page_memcg(page)) { >> + if (ug->memcg != page_memcg(page) || >> + /* uncharge batch update soft limit tree on a node basis */ >> + (ug->dummy_page && ug->nid != page_to_nid(page))) { > > The fix makes sense to me. > > However, unconditionally breaking up the batch by node can > unnecessarily regress workloads in cgroups that do not have a soft > limit configured, and cgroup2 which doesn't have soft limits at > all. Consider an interleaving allocation policy for example. > > Can you please further gate on memcg->soft_limit != PAGE_COUNTER_MAX, > or at least on !cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)? > Sure. Will fix this. Tim