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=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,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 67EF4C33CA1 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 07:22:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3417420684 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 07:22:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1579504961; bh=pkEA+oAOO9QW/RG8LmbV+cobZgIXBO0WfBjtasIfY88=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=v4u23a8bFlO9kRGZPIEcoV89cKMc48jxkR0AwkIcrD2pCD4mTXVTs+9DpxIKA8n+e H3RidTOrSkRRiNybn5yu8iFFcuNbVlK91rZuEJpJRYJd7MgccJgMbjUej1LrqWUV58 4z8tiZ37UK2hYrXyWScyf8zLRSDrVIKuG132e6Jw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725872AbgATHWk (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:22:40 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:42863 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725851AbgATHWk (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:22:40 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id q6so28223345wro.9; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:22:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=hTCsEqhnbed2yOohKKa5cDEabb8n+zDv0sqNRlWlasA=; b=EQBP+t6WVO61LQob2SXQ5C0ZjDPuq3xh0z0fv+IpWyzkAVvHNaC9XlvHAB4r82gcf8 9UqdSC9Ha3Zfp0La4d1/TyOcA+RjW6iHQDhmH7jbA6ZPyqdT2oO5CVxXE4YJY2aG+t+J 4I9ru4bBgsuEb/7GLXTABStMXSmehC4fDLqGs3/o8/9lrRAD6TZvG4CvkMQT0EH8XIpb 6xVj7rzA6wEs+54x+kxVx46g0gcGVCZpK/66OU8FXsM6LdUcosiIrvNPoP8s3vp9McsP N26TXUTHU0kBqqY8DxPNQ39Cu4XFXSeNXMyl/PhTXwf7w4vOnlQCYvPQUhj3oN7x7gG/ 5P6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVh2upr6LTwvAteSPA6nhMVPFx5Vo/RRXlIbNmdGpWzxuS+Dms6 oZS6Om4NhE164q4g2vEi0KQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2iKEyfHH4o8n7UwHlrXbuZHD2r/KRCLb4H54aiHlWXHfI2T42/+/ZrJKyKqvFz7N2h/rY6Q== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e3c7:: with SMTP id k7mr16533068wrm.80.1579504958617; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-138-155.eurotel.cz. [37.188.138.155]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w83sm21395092wmb.42.2020.01.19.23.22.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:22:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:22:37 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Wei Yang , hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alexander.duyck@gmail.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch v4] mm: thp: remove the defer list related code since this will not happen Message-ID: <20200120072237.GA18451@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200117233836.3434-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <20200118145421.0ab96d5d9bea21a3339d52fe@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Sat 18-01-20 15:36:06, David Rientjes wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2020, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 07:38:36 +0800 Wei Yang wrote: > > > > > If compound is true, this means it is a PMD mapped THP. Which implies > > > the page is not linked to any defer list. So the first code chunk will > > > not be executed. > > > > > > Also with this reason, it would not be proper to add this page to a > > > defer list. So the second code chunk is not correct. > > > > > > Based on this, we should remove the defer list related code. > > > > > > Fixes: 87eaceb3faa5 ("mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang > > > Suggested-by: Kirill A. Shutemov > > > Cc: [5.4+] > > > > This patch is identical to "mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulating > > defer list", which is rather confusing. Please let people know when > > this sort of thing is done. > > > > The earlier changelog mentioned a possible race condition. This > > changelog does not. In fact this changelog fails to provide any > > description of any userspace-visible runtime effects of the bug. > > Please send along such a description for inclusion, as always. > > > > The locking concern that Wei was originally looking at is no longer an > issue because we determined that the code in question could simply be > removed. > > I think the following can be added to the changelog: > > ----->o----- > > When migrating memcg charges of thp memory, there are two possibilities: > > (1) The underlying compound page is mapped by a pmd and thus does is not > on a deferred split queue (it's mapped), or > > (2) The compound page is not mapped by a pmd and is awaiting split on a > deferred split queue. > > The current charge migration implementation does *not* migrate charges for > thp memory on the deferred split queue, it only migrates charges for pages > that are mapped by a pmd. > > Thus, to migrate charges, the underlying compound page cannot be on a > deferred split queue; no list manipulation needs to be done in > mem_cgroup_move_account(). > > With the current code, the underlying compound page is moved to the > deferred split queue of the memcg its memory is not charged to, so > susbequent reclaim will consider these pages for the wrong memcg. Remove > the deferred split queue handling in mem_cgroup_move_account() entirely. I believe this still doesn't describe the underlying problem to the full extent. What happens with the page on the deferred list when it shouldn't be there in fact? Unless I am missing something deferred_split_scan will simply split that huge page. Which is a bit unfortunate but nothing really critical. This should be mentioned in the changelog. With that clarified, feel free to add Acked-by: Michal Hocko -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs