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:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:43:26 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: memcg causes crashes in list_lru_add
Message-ID: <20190429104326.GG21837@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <f0cfcfa7-74d0-8738-1061-05d778155462@suse.cz>
 <2cbfb8dc-31f0-7b95-8a93-954edb859cd8@suse.cz>
 <359d98e6-044a-7686-8522-bdd2489e9456@suse.cz>
 <20190429104051.GF21837@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190429104051.GF21837@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 29-04-19 12:40:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 29-04-19 12:09:53, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 29. 04. 19, 11:25, Jiri Slaby wrote:> memcg_update_all_list_lrus
> > should take care about resizing the array.
> > 
> > It should, but:
> > [    0.058362] Number of physical nodes 2
> > [    0.058366] Skipping disabled node 0
> > 
> > So this should be the real fix:
> > --- linux-5.0-stable1.orig/mm/list_lru.c
> > +++ linux-5.0-stable1/mm/list_lru.c
> > @@ -37,11 +37,12 @@ static int lru_shrinker_id(struct list_l
> > 
> >  static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
> >  {
> > -       /*
> > -        * This needs node 0 to be always present, even
> > -        * in the systems supporting sparse numa ids.
> > -        */
> > -       return !!lru->node[0].memcg_lrus;
> > +       int i;
> > +
> > +       for_each_online_node(i)
> > +               return !!lru->node[i].memcg_lrus;
> > +
> > +       return false;
> >  }
> > 
> >  static inline struct list_lru_one *
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Opinions?
> 
> Please report upstream. This code here is there for quite some time.
> I do not really remember why we do have an assumption about node 0
> and why it hasn't been problem until now.

Humm, I blame jet-lag. I was convinced that this is an internal email.
Sorry about the confusion.

Anyway, time to revisit 145949a1387ba. CCed Raghavendra.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs