On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
quoted text
> KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>>> I think this is a race condition if mem_cgroup_move_lists's comment isn't right.
>>>> I am not sure that it was already known problem.
>>>>
>>>> mem_cgroup_move_lists assume the appropriate zone's lru lock is already held.
>>>> but putback_lru_page calls mem_cgroup_move_lists without holding lru_lock.
>>> Hmmm, the comment on mem_cgroup_move_lists() does say this.  Although,
>>> reading thru' the code, I can't see why it requires this.  But then it's
>>> Monday, here...
>>
>> I also think zone's lru lock is unnecessary.
>> So, I guess below "it" indicate lock_page_cgroup, not zone lru lock.
>>
>
> We need zone LRU lock, since the reclaim paths hold them. Not sure if I

Could you explan why you need lru_lock more exact ?
I think it is need by race condition with global reclaim.
Are there any other cause ?

quoted text
> understand why you call zone's LRU lock unnecessary, could you elaborate please?
>
>>  >> But we cannot safely get to page_cgroup without it, so just try_lock it:
>>
>> if my assumption is true, comment modifying is better.
>>
>>
>>>> Repeatedly, spin_[un/lock]_irq use in mem_cgroup_move_list have a big overhead
>>>> while doing list iteration.
>>>>
>>>> Do we have to use pagevec ?
>>> This shouldn't be necessary, IMO.  putback_lru_page() is used as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>> 1) in vmscan.c [shrink_*_list()] when an unevictable page is
>>> encountered.  This should be relatively rare.  Once vmscan sees an
>>> unevictable page, it parks it on the unevictable lru list where it
>>> [vmscan] won't see the page again until it becomes reclaimable.
>>>
>>> 2) as a replacement for move_to_lru() in page migration as the inverse
>>> to isolate_lru_page().  We did this to catch patches that became
>>> unevictable or, more importantly, evictable while page migration held
>>> them isolated.  move_to_lru() already grabbed and released the zone lru
>>> lock on each page migrated.
>>>
>>> 3) In m[un]lock_vma_page() and clear_page_mlock(), new with in the
>>> "mlocked pages are unevictable" series.  This one can result in a storm
>>> of zone lru traffic--e.g., mlock()ing or munlocking() a large segment or
>>> mlockall() of a task with a lot of mapped address space.  Again, this is
>>> probably a very rare event--unless you're stressing [stressing over?]
>>> mlock(), as I've been doing :)--and often involves a major fault [page
>>> allocation], per page anyway.
>>>
>>> I originally did have a pagevec for the unevictable lru but it
>>> complicated ensuring that we don't strand evictable pages on the
>>> unevictable list.  See the retry logic in putback_lru_page().
>>>
>>> As for the !UNEVICTABLE_LRU version, the only place this should be
>>> called is from page migration as none of the other call sites are
>>> compiled in or reachable when !UNEVICTABLE_LRU.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I think both opinion is correct.
>> unevictable lru related code doesn't require pagevec.
>>
>> but mem_cgroup_move_lists is used by active/inactive list transition too.
>> then, pagevec is necessary for keeping reclaim throuput.
>>
>
> It's on my TODO list. I hope to get to it soon.
>
>> Kim-san, Thank you nice point out!
>> I queued this fix to my TODO list.
>
>
> --
>        Warm Regards,
>        Balbir Singh
>        Linux Technology Center
>        IBM, ISTL
>
>



-- 
Kinds regards,
MinChan Kim