At 09/14/2012 09:36 AM, Hugh Dickins Wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:14:28PM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>> root_mem_cgroup->info.nodeinfo is initialized when the system boots.
>>> But NODE_DATA(nid) is null if the node is not onlined, so
>>> root_mem_cgroup->info.nodeinfo[nid]->zoneinfo[zone].lruvec.zone contains
>>> an invalid pointer. If we use numactl to bind a program to the node
>>> after onlining the node and its memory, it will cause the kernel
>>> panicked:
>>
>> Is there any chance we could get rid of the zone backpointer in lruvec
>> again instead?
>
> It could be done, but it would make me sad :(
>
>> Adding new nodes is a rare event and so updating every
>> single memcg in the system might be just borderline crazy.
>
> Not horribly crazy, but rather ugly, yes.
>
>> But can't
>> we just go back to passing the zone along with the lruvec down
>> vmscan.c paths? I agree it's ugly to pass both, given their
>> relationship. But I don't think the backpointer is any cleaner but in
>> addition less robust.
>
> It's like how we use vma->mm: we could change everywhere to pass mm with
> vma, but it looks cleaner and cuts down on long arglists to have mm in vma.
>>From past experience, one of the things I worried about was adding extra
> args to the reclaim stack.
>
>>
>> That being said, the crashing code in particular makes me wonder:
>>
>> static __always_inline void add_page_to_lru_list(struct page *page,
>> struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru)
>> {
>> int nr_pages = hpage_nr_pages(page);
>> mem_cgroup_update_lru_size(lruvec, lru, nr_pages);
>> list_add(&page->lru, &lruvec->lists[lru]);
>> __mod_zone_page_state(lruvec_zone(lruvec), NR_LRU_BASE + lru, nr_pages);
>> }
>>
>> Why did we ever pass zone in here and then felt the need to replace it
>> with lruvec->zone in fa9add6 "mm/memcg: apply add/del_page to lruvec"?
>> A page does not roam between zones, its zone is a static property that
>> can be retrieved with page_zone().
>
> Just as in vmscan.c, we have the lruvec to hand, and that's what we
> mainly want to operate upon, but there is also some need for zone.
>
> (Both Konstantin and I were looking towards the day when we move the
> lru_lock into the lruvec, removing more dependence on "zone". Pretty
> much the only reason that hasn't happened yet, is that we have not found
> time to make a performance case convincingly - but that's another topic.)
>
> Yes, page_zone(page) is a static property of the page, but it's not
> necessarily cheap to evaluate: depends on how complex the memory model
> and the spare page flags space, doesn't it? We both preferred to
> derive zone from lruvec where convenient.
>
> How do you feel about this patch, and does it work for you guys?
>
> You'd be right if you guessed that I started out without the
> mem_cgroup_zone_lruvec part of it, but oops in get_scan_count
> told me that's needed too.
>
> Description to be filled in later: would it be needed for -stable,
> or is onlining already broken in other ways that you're now fixing up?
>
> Reported-by: Tang Chen <tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hu...@google.com>
> ---
>
> include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 -
> mm/memcontrol.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> mm/mmzone.c | 6 -----
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 -
> 4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> --- 3.6-rc5/include/linux/mmzone.h 2012-08-03 08:31:26.892842267 -0700
> +++ linux/include/linux/mmzone.h 2012-09-13 17:07:51.893772372 -0700
> @@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ extern int init_currently_empty_zone(str
> unsigned long size,
> enum memmap_context context);
>
> -extern void lruvec_init(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct zone *zone);
> +extern void lruvec_init(struct lruvec *lruvec);
>
> static inline struct zone *lruvec_zone(struct lruvec *lruvec)
> {
> --- 3.6-rc5/mm/memcontrol.c 2012-08-03 08:31:27.060842270 -0700
> +++ linux/mm/memcontrol.c 2012-09-13 17:46:36.870804625 -0700
> @@ -1061,12 +1061,25 @@ struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_zone_lruvec(st
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz;
> + struct lruvec *lruvec;
>
> - if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> - return &zone->lruvec;
> + if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) {
> + lruvec = &zone->lruvec;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> mz = mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(memcg, zone_to_nid(zone), zone_idx(zone));
> - return &mz->lruvec;
> + lruvec = &mz->lruvec;
> +out:
> + /*
> + * Since a node can be onlined after the mem_cgroup was created,
> + * we have to be prepared to initialize lruvec->zone here.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(lruvec->zone != zone)) {
> + VM_BUG_ON(lruvec->zone);
If node is offlined and onlined again, lruvec->zone is not NULL, and not
equal to zone, this line will cause kernel panicked.
> + lruvec->zone = zone;
> + }
> + return lruvec;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1093,9 +1106,12 @@ struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(st
> struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz;
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> struct page_cgroup *pc;
> + struct lruvec *lruvec;
>
> - if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> - return &zone->lruvec;
> + if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) {
> + lruvec = &zone->lruvec;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> memcg = pc->mem_cgroup;
> @@ -1113,7 +1129,17 @@ struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(st
> pc->mem_cgroup = memcg = root_mem_cgroup;
>
> mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(memcg, page);
> - return &mz->lruvec;
> + lruvec = &mz->lruvec;
> +out:
> + /*
> + * Since a node can be onlined after the mem_cgroup was created,
> + * we have to be prepared to initialize lruvec->zone here.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(lruvec->zone != zone)) {
> + VM_BUG_ON(lruvec->zone);
I apply your patch, and remove VM_BUG_ON(). I don't find any error in my test
now.
Thanks
Wen Congyang
> + lruvec->zone = zone;
> + }
> + return lruvec;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -4742,7 +4768,7 @@ static int alloc_mem_cgroup_per_zone_inf
>
> for (zone = 0; zone < MAX_NR_ZONES; zone++) {
> mz = &pn->zoneinfo[zone];
> - lruvec_init(&mz->lruvec, &NODE_DATA(node)->node_zones[zone]);
> + lruvec_init(&mz->lruvec);
> mz->usage_in_excess = 0;
> mz->on_tree = false;
> mz->memcg = memcg;
> --- 3.6-rc5/mm/mmzone.c 2012-08-03 08:31:27.064842271 -0700
> +++ linux/mm/mmzone.c 2012-09-13 17:06:28.921766001 -0700
> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ int memmap_valid_within(unsigned long pf
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL */
>
> -void lruvec_init(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct zone *zone)
> +void lruvec_init(struct lruvec *lruvec)
> {
> enum lru_list lru;
>
> @@ -95,8 +95,4 @@ void lruvec_init(struct lruvec *lruvec,
>
> for_each_lru(lru)
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lruvec->lists[lru]);
> -
> -#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> - lruvec->zone = zone;
> -#endif
> }
> --- 3.6-rc5/mm/page_alloc.c 2012-08-22 14:25:39.508279046 -0700
> +++ linux/mm/page_alloc.c 2012-09-13 17:06:08.265763526 -0700
> @@ -4456,7 +4456,7 @@ static void __paginginit free_area_init_
> zone->zone_pgdat = pgdat;
>
> zone_pcp_init(zone);
> - lruvec_init(&zone->lruvec, zone);
> + lruvec_init(&zone->lruvec);
> if (!size)
> continue;
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
