From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755774Ab2BVDn0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:43:26 -0500 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:61947 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754067Ab2BVDnZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:43:25 -0500 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of koct9i@gmail.com designates 10.205.131.13 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=koct9i@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=koct9i@gmail.com Message-ID: <4F446458.8000107@openvz.org> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:43:20 +0400 From: Konstantin Khlebnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20120201 Iceape/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Johannes Weiner , Ying Han , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] mm/memcg: move lru_lock into lruvec References: <4F434300.3080001@openvz.org> <4F440E1D.7050004@openvz.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> Hugh Dickins wrote: >>> >>> I'll have to come back to think about your locking later too; >>> or maybe that's exactly where I need to look, when investigating >>> the mm_inline.h:41 BUG. >> >> pages_count[] updates looks correct. >> This really may be bug in locking, and this VM_BUG_ON catch it before >> list-debug. > > I've still not got into looking at it yet. > > You're right to mention DEBUG_LIST: I have that on some of the machines, > and I would expect that to be the first to catch a mislocking issue. > > In the past my problems with that BUG (well, the spur to introduce it) > came from hugepages. My patchset hasn't your mem_cgroup_reset_uncharged_to_root protection, or something to replace it. So, there exist race between cgroup remove and isolated uncharged page put-back, but it shouldn't corrupt lru lists. There something different. > >>> >>> But at first sight, I have to say I'm very suspicious: I've never found >>> PageLRU a good enough test for whether we need such a lock, because of >>> races with those pages on percpu lruvec about to be put on the lru. >>> >>> But maybe once I look closer, I'll find that's handled by your changes >>> away from lruvec; though I'd have thought the same issue exists, >>> independent of whether the pending pages are in vector or list. >> >> Are you talking about my per-cpu page-lists for lru-adding? > > Yes. > >> This is just an unnecessary patch, I don't know why I include it into v2 set. >> It does not protect anything. > > Okay. > > Hugh