Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm: thp: reparent the split queue during memcg offline

Qi Zheng
2025-09-26T06:57:53Z

On 9/26/25 6:35 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 03:15:26PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 03:49:52PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 25 Sep 2025, at 15:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25.09.25 08:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> Hi :)
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
>>>>>>> @@ -1346,6 +1346,7 @@ struct deferred_split {
>>>>>>>       spinlock_t split_queue_lock;
>>>>>>>       struct list_head split_queue;
>>>>>>>       unsigned long split_queue_len;
>>>>>>> +    bool is_dying;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a bit weird to query whether the "struct deferred_split" is dying.
>>>>>> Shouldn't this be a memcg property? (and in particular, not exist for
>>>>>
>>>>> There is indeed a CSS_DYING flag. But we must modify 'is_dying' under
>>>>> the protection of the split_queue_lock, otherwise the folio may be added
>>>>> back to the deferred_split of child memcg.
>>>>
>>>> Is there no way to reuse the existing mechanisms, and find a way to have the shrinker / queue locking sync against that?
>>>>
>>>> There is also the offline_css() function where we clear CSS_ONLINE. But it happens after calling ss->css_offline(css);
>>>
>>> I see CSS_DYING will be set by kill_css() before offline_css() is called.
>>> Probably the code can check CSS_DYING instead.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Being able to query "is the memcg going offline" and having a way to sync against that would be probably cleanest.
>>>
>>> So basically, something like:
>>> 1. at folio_split_queue_lock*() time, get folio’s memcg or
>>> its parent memcg until there is no CSS_DYING set or CSS_ONLINE is set.
>>> 2. return the associated deferred_split_queue.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, css_is_dying() can be used but please note that there is a rcu
>> grace period between setting CSS_DYING and clearing CSS_ONLINE (i.e.
>> reparenting deferred split queue) and during that period the deferred
>> split THPs of the dying memcg will be hidden from shrinkers (which
>> might be fine).

My mistake, now I think using css_is_dying() is safe.

>
> BTW if this period is not acceptable and we don't want to add is_dying
> to struct deferred_split, we can use something similar to what list_lru
> does in the similar situation i.e. set a special value (LONG_MIN) in its
> nr_items variable. That is make split_queue_len a long and set it to
> LONG_MIN during memcg offlining/reparenting.

I've considered this option, but I am concerned about the risk of
overflow.

So I will try to use css_is_dying() in the next version.

Thanks,
Qi