Use this new function to replace repeated same code, no func change.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <[email protected]>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
Cc: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <[email protected]>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
Cc: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
---
mm/mlock.c | 9 +--------
mm/swap.c | 33 +++++++--------------------------
mm/vmscan.c | 8 +-------
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
index cb23a0c2cfbf..4f40fc091cf9 100644
--- a/mm/mlock.c
+++ b/mm/mlock.c
@@ -289,17 +289,10 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
/* Phase 1: page isolation */
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
- struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
bool clearlru;
clearlru = TestClearPageLRU(page);
-
- new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
- if (new_lruvec != lruvec) {
- if (lruvec)
- unlock_page_lruvec_irq(lruvec);
- lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page);
- }
+ lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irq(page, lruvec);
if (!TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
delta_munlocked++;
diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index 129c532357a4..9fb906fbaed5 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -209,19 +209,12 @@ static void pagevec_lru_move_fn(struct pagevec *pvec,
for (i = 0; i < pagevec_count(pvec); i++) {
struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
- struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
-
- new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
- if (lruvec != new_lruvec) {
- if (lruvec)
- unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec, flags);
- lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, &flags);
- }
/* block memcg migration during page moving between lru */
if (!TestClearPageLRU(page))
continue;
+ lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, lruvec, &flags);
(*move_fn)(page, lruvec);
SetPageLRU(page);
@@ -866,17 +859,12 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, int nr)
}
if (PageLRU(page)) {
- struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
-
- new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page,
- page_pgdat(page));
- if (new_lruvec != lruvec) {
- if (lruvec)
- unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec,
- flags);
+ struct lruvec *pre_lruvec = lruvec;
+
+ lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, lruvec,
+ &flags);
+ if (pre_lruvec != lruvec)
lock_batch = 0;
- lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, &flags);
- }
__ClearPageLRU(page);
del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_off_lru(page));
@@ -982,15 +970,8 @@ void __pagevec_lru_add(struct pagevec *pvec)
for (i = 0; i < pagevec_count(pvec); i++) {
struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
- struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
-
- new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
- if (lruvec != new_lruvec) {
- if (lruvec)
- unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec, flags);
- lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, &flags);
- }
+ lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, lruvec, &flags);
__pagevec_lru_add_fn(page, lruvec);
}
if (lruvec)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 168c1659e430..bdb53a678e7e 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -4292,15 +4292,9 @@ void check_move_unevictable_pages(struct pagevec *pvec)
for (i = 0; i < pvec->nr; i++) {
struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
- struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
pgscanned++;
- new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
- if (lruvec != new_lruvec) {
- if (lruvec)
- unlock_page_lruvec_irq(lruvec);
- lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page);
- }
+ lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irq(page, lruvec);
if (!PageLRU(page) || !PageUnevictable(page))
continue;
--
1.8.3.1
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:59 PM Alex Shi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Use this new function to replace repeated same code, no func change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <[email protected]>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <[email protected]>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> ---
> mm/mlock.c | 9 +--------
> mm/swap.c | 33 +++++++--------------------------
> mm/vmscan.c | 8 +-------
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
> index cb23a0c2cfbf..4f40fc091cf9 100644
> --- a/mm/mlock.c
> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> @@ -289,17 +289,10 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
> /* Phase 1: page isolation */
> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
> - struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
> bool clearlru;
>
> clearlru = TestClearPageLRU(page);
> -
> - new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
> - if (new_lruvec != lruvec) {
> - if (lruvec)
> - unlock_page_lruvec_irq(lruvec);
> - lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page);
> - }
> + lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irq(page, lruvec);
>
> if (!TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
> delta_munlocked++;
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index 129c532357a4..9fb906fbaed5 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -209,19 +209,12 @@ static void pagevec_lru_move_fn(struct pagevec *pvec,
>
> for (i = 0; i < pagevec_count(pvec); i++) {
> struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
> - struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
> -
> - new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
> - if (lruvec != new_lruvec) {
> - if (lruvec)
> - unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec, flags);
> - lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, &flags);
> - }
>
> /* block memcg migration during page moving between lru */
> if (!TestClearPageLRU(page))
> continue;
>
> + lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, lruvec, &flags);
> (*move_fn)(page, lruvec);
>
> SetPageLRU(page);
So looking at this I realize that patch 18 probably should have
ordered this the same way with the TestClearPageLRU happening before
you fetched the new_lruvec. Otherwise I think you are potentially
exposed to the original issue you were fixing the the previous patch
that added the call to TestClearPageLRU.
> @@ -866,17 +859,12 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, int nr)
> }
>
> if (PageLRU(page)) {
> - struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
> -
> - new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page,
> - page_pgdat(page));
> - if (new_lruvec != lruvec) {
> - if (lruvec)
> - unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec,
> - flags);
> + struct lruvec *pre_lruvec = lruvec;
> +
> + lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, lruvec,
> + &flags);
> + if (pre_lruvec != lruvec)
So this doesn't really read right. I suppose "pre_lruvec" should
probably be "prev_lruvec" since I assume you mean "previous" not
"before".
> lock_batch = 0;
> - lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, &flags);
> - }
>
> __ClearPageLRU(page);
> del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_off_lru(page));
> @@ -982,15 +970,8 @@ void __pagevec_lru_add(struct pagevec *pvec)
>
> for (i = 0; i < pagevec_count(pvec); i++) {
> struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
> - struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
> -
> - new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
> - if (lruvec != new_lruvec) {
> - if (lruvec)
> - unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec, flags);
> - lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, &flags);
> - }
>
> + lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, lruvec, &flags);
> __pagevec_lru_add_fn(page, lruvec);
> }
> if (lruvec)
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 168c1659e430..bdb53a678e7e 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -4292,15 +4292,9 @@ void check_move_unevictable_pages(struct pagevec *pvec)
>
> for (i = 0; i < pvec->nr; i++) {
> struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
> - struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
>
> pgscanned++;
> - new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
> - if (lruvec != new_lruvec) {
> - if (lruvec)
> - unlock_page_lruvec_irq(lruvec);
> - lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page);
> - }
> + lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irq(page, lruvec);
>
> if (!PageLRU(page) || !PageUnevictable(page))
> continue;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
>
在 2020/7/18 上午6:03, Alexander Duyck 写道:
>> index 129c532357a4..9fb906fbaed5 100644
>> --- a/mm/swap.c
>> +++ b/mm/swap.c
>> @@ -209,19 +209,12 @@ static void pagevec_lru_move_fn(struct pagevec *pvec,
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < pagevec_count(pvec); i++) {
>> struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
>> - struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
>> -
>> - new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
>> - if (lruvec != new_lruvec) {
>> - if (lruvec)
>> - unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec, flags);
>> - lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, &flags);
>> - }
>>
>> /* block memcg migration during page moving between lru */
>> if (!TestClearPageLRU(page))
>> continue;
>>
>> + lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, lruvec, &flags);
>> (*move_fn)(page, lruvec);
>>
>> SetPageLRU(page);
> So looking at this I realize that patch 18 probably should have
> ordered this the same way with the TestClearPageLRU happening before
> you fetched the new_lruvec. Otherwise I think you are potentially
> exposed to the original issue you were fixing the the previous patch
> that added the call to TestClearPageLRU.
Good catch. It's better to be aligned in next version.
Thanks!
>
>> @@ -866,17 +859,12 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, int nr)
>> }
>>
>> if (PageLRU(page)) {
>> - struct lruvec *new_lruvec;
>> -
>> - new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page,
>> - page_pgdat(page));
>> - if (new_lruvec != lruvec) {
>> - if (lruvec)
>> - unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec,
>> - flags);
>> + struct lruvec *pre_lruvec = lruvec;
>> +
>> + lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, lruvec,
>> + &flags);
>> + if (pre_lruvec != lruvec)
> So this doesn't really read right. I suppose "pre_lruvec" should
> probably be "prev_lruvec" since I assume you mean "previous" not
> "before".
yes, it's previous, I will rename it.
Thanks
Alex
>