Re: [PATCH v2] mm: thp: update split_queue_len correctly

[Shakeel Butt]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:17 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:44 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:12 PM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 11:09:16AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > The deferred THPs are split on memory pressure through shrinker
> > > > callback and splitting of THP during reclaim can fail for several
> > > > reasons like unable to lock the THP, under writeback or unexpected
> > > > number of pins on the THP. Such pages are put back on the deferred split
> > > > list for consideration later. However kernel does not update the
> > > > deferred queue size on putting back the pages whose split was failed.
> > > > This patch fixes that.
> > >
> > > Hm. No. split_huge_page_to_list() updates the queue size on split success.
> > >
> >
> > Right. This is really convoluted. split_huge_page_to_list() is just
> > assuming that if the given page is on a deferred list then it must be
> > on the list returned by get_deferred_split_queue(page). The
> > interaction of move_charge and deferred split seems broken.
>
> Because memcg code doesn't move charge for PTE mapped THP at all. See
> the below comment from mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range():
>
> "We can have a part of the split pmd here. Moving it can be done but
> it would be too convoluted so simply ignore such a partial THP and
> keep it in original memcg. There should be somebody mapping the head."
>
> BTW, did you run into any problem related to this?
>

No, just reading code to see if I can share code for the sync splitting of THPs.