Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:07:49 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       hugh@veritas.com, taka@valinux.co.jp
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] memcg : handle swap cache
Message-Id: <20081105090749.a8756b03.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <20081104192822.fc87868b.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
References: <20081031115057.6da3dafd.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20081031115411.25478878.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20081104174201.9e2dc44c.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
	<20081104180429.4e47875e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20081104192822.fc87868b.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2860
Lines: 90

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:28:22 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 18:04:29 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:42:01 +0900
> > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SWAP
> > > > +int mem_cgroup_cache_charge_swapin(struct page *page,
> > > > +			struct mm_struct *mm, gfp_t mask)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (mem_cgroup_subsys.disabled)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +	if (unlikely(!mm))
> > > > +		mm = &init_mm;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ret = mem_cgroup_charge_common(page, mm, mask,
> > > > +			MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_SHMEM, NULL);
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * The page may be dropped from SwapCache because we don't have
> > > > +	 * lock_page().This may cause charge-after-uncharge trouble.
> > > > +	 * Fix it up here. (the caller have refcnt to this page and
> > > > +	 * page itself is guaranteed not to be freed.)
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (ret && !PageSwapCache(page))
> > > > +		mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(page);
> > > > +
> > > Hmm.. after [5/5], mem_cgroup_cache_charge_swapin has 'locked' parameter,
> > > calls lock_page(if !locked), and checks PageSwapCache under page lock.
> > > 
> > > Why not doing it in this patch?
> > > 
> > 
> > My intention is to guard swap_cgroup by lock_page() against SwapCache.
> > In Mem+Swap controller. we get "memcg" from information in page->private.
> > I think we need lock_page(), there. 
> > 
> > But here, we don't refer page->private information. 
> > I think we don't need lock_page() because there is no inofrmation we depends on.
> > 
> I just thought it would be simpler to check PageSwapCache after holding
> page lock rather than to handle the case that the page might be removed from
> swap cache.
> 
> And to be honest, I can't understand the "charge-after-uncharge trouble".
> Could you explain more?
> 
Maybe typical case is following.
__delete_from_swapcache can happen while the page is unlocked.
==
                                                  some other thread.
   page = shmem_swapin()
   	swapin_readahead();
   # page is SwapCache here.
   # but this page is not locked.
                                                  ___delete_from_swapcache(page)
   # This is not SwapCache.                                 => uncharge swapcache.
   mem_cgroup_charge_cache_swapin();
   {
       charge();  # charged this page but we don't know this is still swapcache.
       if (!PageSwapCache(page)) {
		# Oh we should unroll this.
       }
   }
=

Thanks,
-Kame


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/