lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/11] mm,migration: Do not try to migrate unmapped anonymous pages
    On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 06:09:34PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:32:35 +0000
    > > Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:49:23AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 03:21:41PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > > > Hmmm...
    > > > > I haven't understand your mention because I guess I was wrong.
    > > > >
    > > > > probably my last question was unclear. I mean,
    > > > >
    > > > > 1) If we still need SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, why do we need to add refcount?
    > > > > Which difference is exist between normal page migration and compaction?
    > > >
    > > > The processes typically calling migration today own the page they are moving
    > > > and is not going to exit unexpectedly during migration.
    > > >
    > > > > 2) If we added refcount, which race will solve?
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > The process exiting and the last anon_vma being dropped while compaction
    > > > is running. This can be reliably triggered with compaction.
    > > >
    > > > > IOW, Is this patch fix old issue or compaction specific issue?
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Strictly speaking, it's an old issue but in practice it's impossible to
    > > > trigger because the process migrating always owns the page. Compaction
    > > > moves pages belonging to arbitrary processes.
    > > >
    > > Kosaki-san,
    > >
    > > IIUC, the race in memory-hotunplug was fixed by this patch [2/11].
    > >
    > > But, this behavior of unmap_and_move() requires access to _freed_
    > > objects (spinlock). Even if it's safe because of SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU,
    > > it't not good habit in general.
    > >
    > > After direct compaction, page-migration will be one of "core" code of
    > > memory management. Then, I agree to patch [1/11] as our direction for
    > > keeping sanity and showing direction to more updates. Maybe adding
    > > refcnt and removing RCU in futuer is good.
    >
    > But Christoph seems oppose to remove SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. then refcount
    > is meaningless now.

    Christoph is opposed to removing it because of cache-hotness issues more
    so than use-after-free concerns. The refcount is needed with or without
    SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.

    > I agree you if we will remove SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU
    > in the future.
    >
    > refcount is easy understanding than rcu trick.
    >
    >
    > > IMHO, pushing this patch [2/11] as "BUGFIX" independent of this set and
    > > adding anon_vma->refcnt [1/11] and [3/11] in 1st Direct-compaction patch
    > > series to show the direction will makse sense.
    > > (I think merging 1/11 and 3/11 will be okay...)
    >
    > agreed.
    >
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > -Kame
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >

    --
    Mel Gorman
    Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
    University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-25 10:23    [W:3.162 / U:1.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site