Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220330191440.1cc1b2de2b849d1ba93d2ba7@linux-foundation.org>
 <89B53D3A-FCC5-4107-8D49-81D5B9AE5172@linux.dev> <20220331063956.5uqnab64cqnmcwyr@google.com>
 <YkVcbElWjomA7ofF@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20220331181126.815cfe2b05b4281d32b7bf49@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220331181126.815cfe2b05b4281d32b7bf49@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 12:30:19 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtUfsGECdA8Nj=_xCurs3LgnB9ATc7J=dFA4_V_Zy-1FnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/list_lru: Fix possible race in memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:11 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wr=
ote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:46:52 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu 31-03-22 06:39:56, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 07:48:45PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But honestly, I=E2=80=99d drop the original optimization together w=
ith
> > > > the fix, if only there is no _real world_ data on the problem and
> > > > the improvement. It seems like it has started as a nice simple
> > > > improvement, but the race makes it complex and probably not worth
> > > > the added complexity and fragility.
> > >
> > > I agree with dropping the original optimization as it is not really
> > > fixing an observed issue which may justify adding some complexity.
> >
> > Completely agreed. The patch as it is proposed is not really acceptable
> > IMHO and I have to say I am worried that this is not the first time we
> > are in a situation when a follow up fixes or unrelated patches are
> > growing in complexity to fit on top of a performance optimizations whic=
h
> > do not refer to any actual numbers.
>
> Yup.  I did this:
>
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Subject: mm/list_lru.c: revert "mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list=
_lru_node()"
>
> 405cc51fc1049c73 ("mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()")
> has subtle races which are proving ugly to fix.  Revert the original
> optimization.  If quantitative testing indicates that we have a
> significant problem here then other implementations can be looked at.
>
> Fixes: 405cc51fc1049c73 ("mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_n=
ode()")
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
> Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>