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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 C746BC32771 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:27:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9906A217F4 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:27:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1579555655; bh=q0zQFHfPmHFMrGYUN36xxhVlPWDGQewChJCUa1T0tmk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=fypLnLTBzo6HwdXMXlCRJQIhwk3qFyNXelWre8Q2SlqVtrzsxvYkJWdf9sPVcAFtG nvNyXMjdWIIh8drELfWNcAKJLpgh4qUP/1onxFghuE8i7xTNgxUmZvilNMrfaiDNye 2cnesPykbU90tMB+mvT59QQMFNOX+MfkoAiNS/bg= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727005AbgATV1f (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:27:35 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f43.google.com ([209.85.221.43]:34539 "EHLO mail-wr1-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726586AbgATV1f (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:27:35 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id t2so1060543wrr.1; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:27:34 -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; bh=xRMZlrNlQg9cdO4fRMxM7tI9dWMAzyGA31Iy64N3nl8=; b=iWVwTeDEyN2muQbm+4Ut9dEwC0pJVh35SMTjzD0klwRpICJ04oCwPMtlucso3pGMOd VHP6lHsrfQSOkUsUVx7ZD0rNFol6wcR8txftXkLIVTBFt7vs1nFVwX510HsPTst1xP84 BsjCzhWtKO4a4rWpZnUbmwzvJakc4t/cLHCdUD7lllx6/id+MrfkMcArXw1Zt59h9C8x Iu7hD0dovUFgZqbhQ4Uaj+kx5HMfAGjPcanWJfWUTiBxx5stWpvjXmdi0XjaXmFkAoOy GeU3eP2+fozkmHQOeU7AFEFfTwNq+wFmpvDYr22Ev67gY+aYKH8eGdsD/wiaGOXh/TTd HDiw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX0f+BPHf58T6GLpBuiATEaVKBIl5B/IzY0INTUOF8ifGO4Xyf6 MmeFHyKl6ig9K5QAqufqYfWj+OBr X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyYgz2mI0koULHiATO7/pyVqYlpiyljM7jza7dSiOuNS5UDLDHVm+KJL6g9yjj9NKtYMqDKWw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:d0c1:: with SMTP id z1mr1443832wrh.371.1579555653420; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:27:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-245-167.eurotel.cz. [37.188.245.167]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v83sm939560wmg.16.2020.01.20.13.27.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:27:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:27:26 +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: <20200120212726.GB29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200117233836.3434-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <20200118145421.0ab96d5d9bea21a3339d52fe@linux-foundation.org> <20200120072237.GA18451@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Mon 20-01-20 13:10:56, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Are you referring to a compound page on the deferred split queue before a > task is moved? I'm not sure this is within the scope of Wei's patch.. > this is simply preventing a page from being moved to the deferred split > queue of a memcg that it is not charged to. Is there a concern about why > this code can be removed or a suggestion on something else it should be > doing instead? No, I do not have any concern about the patch itslef. It is that the changelog doesn't decribe the user visible effect. All I am saying is that the current code splits THPs of moved pages under memory pressure even if that is not needed. And that is a clear bug. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs