Re: [PATCH v8 03/10] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock

[Alex Shi]

在 2020/1/17 上午5:52, Johannes Weiner 写道:

> You simply cannot serialize on page->mem_cgroup->lruvec when
> page->mem_cgroup isn't stable. You need to serialize on the page
> itself, one way or another, to make this work.
> 
> 
> So here is a crazy idea that may be worth exploring:
> 
> Right now, pgdat->lru_lock protects both PageLRU *and* the lruvec's
> linked list.
> 
> Can we make PageLRU atomic and use it to stabilize the lru_lock
> instead, and then use the lru_lock only serialize list operations?
> 

Hi Johannes,

I am trying to figure out the solution of atomic PageLRU, but is 
blocked by the following sitations, when PageLRU and lru list was protected
together under lru_lock, the PageLRU could be a indicator if page on lru list
But now seems it can't be the indicator anymore.
Could you give more clues of stabilization usage of PageLRU?
  

__page_cache_release/release_pages/compaction            __pagevec_lru_add
if (TestClearPageLRU(page))                              if (!PageLRU())
                                                                lruvec_lock();
                                                                list_add();
        			                                lruvec_unlock();
        			                                SetPageLRU() //position 1
        lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, &flags);
        del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, ..);
        unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec, flags);
                                                                SetPageLRU() //position 2
Thanks a lot!
Alex

> I.e. in compaction, you'd do
> 
> 	if (!TestClearPageLRU(page))
> 		goto isolate_fail;
> 	/*
> 	 * We isolated the page's LRU state and thereby locked out all
> 	 * other isolators, including cgroup page moving, page reclaim,
> 	 * page freeing etc. That means page->mem_cgroup is now stable
> 	 * and we can safely look up the correct lruvec and take the
> 	 * page off its physical LRU list.
> 	 */
> 	lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page);
> 	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> 	del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page));
> 
> Putback would mostly remain the same (although you could take the
> PageLRU setting out of the list update locked section, as long as it's
> set after the page is physically linked):
> 
> 	/* LRU isolation pins page->mem_cgroup */
> 	lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page)
> 	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> 	add_page_to_lru_list(...);
> 	spin_unlock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> 
> 	SetPageLRU(page);
> 
> And you'd have to carefully review and rework other sites that rely on
> PageLRU: reclaim, __page_cache_release(), __activate_page() etc.
> 
> Especially things like activate_page(), which used to only check
> PageLRU to shuffle the page on the LRU list would now have to briefly
> clear PageLRU and then set it again afterwards.
> 
> However, aside from a bit more churn in those cases, and the
> unfortunate additional atomic operations, I currently can't think of a
> fundamental reason why this wouldn't work.
> 
> Hugh, what do you think?
>