lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg: fix memory migration of shmem swapcache
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 13:48:50 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Daisuke Nishimura
> <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > This is a fix for a problem which has bothered me for a month.
> >
> > ===
> > From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> >
> > In current implimentation, mem_cgroup_end_migration() decides whether the page
> > migration has succeeded or not by checking "oldpage->mapping".
> >
> > But if we are tring to migrate a shmem swapcache, the page->mapping of it is
> > NULL from the begining, so the check would be invalid.
> > As a result, mem_cgroup_end_migration() assumes the migration has succeeded
> > even if it's not, so "newpage" would be freed while it's not uncharged.
> >
> > This patch fixes it by passing mem_cgroup_end_migration() the result of the
> > page migration.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
>
> Nice catch. I don't oppose the patch.
Thank you for your review.

> But as looking the code in unmap_and_move, I feel part of mem cgroup
> migrate is rather awkward.
>
> int unmap_and_move()
> {
> charge = mem_cgroup_prepare_migration(xxx);
> ..
> BUG_ON(charge); <-- BUG if it is charged?
> ..
> uncharge:
> if (!charge) <-- why do we have to uncharge !charge?
> mem_group_end_migration(xxx);
> ..
> }
>
> 'charge' local variable isn't good. How about changing "uncharge" or whatever?
hmm, I agree that current code seems a bit confusing, but I can't think of
better name to imply the result of 'charge'.

And considering more, I can't understand why we need to check "if (!charge)"
before mem_cgroup_end_migration() becase it must be always true and, IMHO,
mem_cgroup_end_migration() should do all necesarry checks to avoid double uncharge.
So, I think this local variable can be removed completely.
rc = mem_cgroup_prepare_migration(..);
if (rc == -ENOMEM)
goto unlock;
BUG_ON(rc);
..
uncharge:
mem_cgroup_end_migration(..);
KAMEZAWA-san, what do you think ?

> Of course, It would be another patch.
Yes.

> If you don't mind, I will send the patch or you may send the patch.
>
I'll leave it to you, but anyway, please do it after this patch has merged.
it will conflict with this patch.


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-05 07:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans