Re: [PATCH v1 03/12] mm: memcontrol: make lruvec lock safe when LRU pages are reparented

From: Roman Gushchin
Date: Tue Aug 17 2021 - 23:18:28 EST

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 01:25:10PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> The diagram below shows how to make the folio lruvec lock safe when LRU
> pages are reparented.
> folio_lruvec_lock(folio)
> retry:
> lruvec = folio_lruvec(folio);
> // The folio is reparented at this time.
> spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> if (unlikely(lruvec_memcg(lruvec) != folio_memcg(folio)))
> // Acquired the wrong lruvec lock and need to retry.
> // Because this folio is on the parent memcg lruvec list.
> goto retry;
> // If we reach here, it means that folio_memcg(folio) is stable.
> memcg_reparent_objcgs(memcg)
> // lruvec belongs to memcg and lruvec_parent belongs to parent memcg.
> spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> spin_lock(&lruvec_parent->lru_lock);
> // Move all the pages from the lruvec list to the parent lruvec list.
> spin_unlock(&lruvec_parent->lru_lock);
> spin_unlock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> After we acquire the lruvec lock, we need to check whether the folio is
> reparented. If so, we need to reacquire the new lruvec lock. On the
> routine of the LRU pages reparenting, we will also acquire the lruvec
> lock (will be implemented in the later patch). So folio_memcg() cannot
> be changed when we hold the lruvec lock.
> Since lruvec_memcg(lruvec) is always equal to folio_memcg(folio) after
> we hold the lruvec lock, lruvec_memcg_debug() check is pointless. So
> remove it.
> This is a preparation for reparenting the LRU pages.
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>

Maybe it's mostly s/page/folio, but the patch looks quite differently
in comparison to the version I did ack. In general, please, drop acks
when there are significant changes between versions.