Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:42:11 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
CC:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting
Message-ID: <20180824154208.GA23633@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180821213559.14694-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20180822141213.GO29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180823162347.GA22650@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <20180824125052.GA13774@cmpxchg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180824125052.GA13774@cmpxchg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2018 15:42:18.2019 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c3f4a2c2-0ffb-4457-c5cf-08d609d82d14
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR15MB0164
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-08-24_07:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 08:50:52AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 09:23:50AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 04:12:13PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-08-18 14:35:57, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > @@ -248,9 +253,20 @@ static unsigned long *alloc_thread_stack_node(struct task_struct *tsk, int node)
> > > >  static inline void free_thread_stack(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > >  {
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
> > > > -	if (task_stack_vm_area(tsk)) {
> > > > +	struct vm_struct *vm = task_stack_vm_area(tsk);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (vm) {
> > > >  		int i;
> > > >  
> > > > +		for (i = 0; i < THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE; i++) {
> > > > +			mod_memcg_page_state(vm->pages[i],
> > > > +					     MEMCG_KERNEL_STACK_KB,
> > > > +					     -(int)(PAGE_SIZE / 1024));
> > > > +
> > > > +			memcg_kmem_uncharge(vm->pages[i],
> > > > +					    compound_order(vm->pages[i]));
> > > 
> > > when do we have order > 0 here?
> > 
> > I guess, it's not possible, but hard-coded 1 looked a bit crappy.
> > Do you think it's better?
> 
> Yes, specifying the known value (order 0) is much better. I asked
> myself the same question as Michal: we're walking through THREAD_SIZE
> in PAGE_SIZE steps, how could it possibly be a higher order page?
> 
> It adds an unnecessary branch to the code and the reader's brain.

Fair enough. Will switch over hard-coded order 0 in v3.

Thanks!