lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/7] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock
From
Date


在 2019/11/16 下午12:38, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:15:02AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> This is the main patch to replace per node lru_lock with per memcg
>> lruvec lock. It also fold the irqsave flags into lruvec.
>
> I have to say, I don't love the part where we fold the irqsave flags
> into the lruvec. I know it saves us an argument, but it opens up the
> possibility of mismatched expectations. eg we currently have:
>
> static void __split_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
> struct lruvec *lruvec, pgoff_t end)
> {
> ...
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lruvec->lru_lock, lruvec->irqflags);
>
> so if we introduce a new caller, we have to be certain that this caller
> is also using lock_page_lruvec_irqsave() and not lock_page_lruvec_irq().
> I can't think of a way to make the compiler enforce that, and if we don't,
> then we can get some odd crashes with interrupts being unexpectedly
> enabled or disabled, depending on how ->irqflags was used last.
>
> So it makes the code more subtle. And that's not a good thing.

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for comments!

Here, the irqflags is bound, and belong to lruvec, merging them into together helps us to take them as whole, and thus reduce a unnecessary code clues.
The only thing maybe bad that it may take move place in pg_data_t.lruvec, but there are PADDINGs to remove this concern.

As your concern for a 'new' caller, since __split_huge_page is a static helper here, no distub for anyothers.

Do you agree on that?

>
>> +static inline struct lruvec *lock_page_lruvec_irq(struct page *page,
>> + struct pglist_data *pgdat)
>> +{
>> + struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>> +
>> + return lruvec;
>> +}
>
> ...
>
>> +static struct lruvec *lock_page_lru(struct page *page, int *isolated)
>> {
>> pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
>> + struct lruvec *lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page, pgdat);
>>
>> - spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>> if (PageLRU(page)) {
>> - struct lruvec *lruvec;
>>
>> - lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
>> ClearPageLRU(page);
>> del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page));
>> *isolated = 1;
>> } else
>> *isolated = 0;
>> +
>> + return lruvec;
>> }
>
> But what if the page is !PageLRU? What lruvec did we just lock?

like original pgdat->lru_lock, we need the lock from PageLRU racing. And it the lruvec which the page should be.


> According to the comments on mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(),
>
> * This function is only safe when following the LRU page isolation
> * and putback protocol: the LRU lock must be held, and the page must
> * either be PageLRU() or the caller must have isolated/allocated it.
>
> and now it's being called in order to find out which LRU lock to take.
> So this comment needs to be updated, if it's wrong, or this patch has
> a race.


Yes, the function reminder is a bit misunderstanding with new patch, How about the following changes:

- * This function is only safe when following the LRU page isolation
- * and putback protocol: the LRU lock must be held, and the page must
- * either be PageLRU() or the caller must have isolated/allocated it.
+ * The caller needs to grantee the page's mem_cgroup is undisturbed during
+ * using. That could be done by lock_page_memcg or lock_page_lruvec.

Thanks
Alex

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-18 12:57    [W:0.083 / U:43.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site