On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 08:18:24PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:Right. list_lru_node is a per-node structure inside list_lru.
Since commit 2c80cd57c743 ("mm/list_lru.c: fix list_lru_count_node()This is a per-node counter, not a per-memcg, right?
to be race free"), we are tracking the total number of lru
entries in a list_lru_node in its nr_items field. In the case of
memcg_reparent_list_lru_node(), there is nothing to be done if nr_items
is 0. We don't even need to take the nlru->lock as no new lru entry
could be added by a racing list_lru_add() to the draining src_idx memcg
at this point.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/list_lru.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
index ba76428ceece..c669d87001a6 100644
--- a/mm/list_lru.c
+++ b/mm/list_lru.c
@@ -394,6 +394,12 @@ static void memcg_reparent_list_lru_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
int dst_idx = dst_memcg->kmemcg_id;
struct list_lru_one *src, *dst;
+ /*
+ * If there is no lru entry in this nlru, we can skip it immediately.
+ */
+ if (!READ_ONCE(nlru->nr_items))
+ return;
If so, do we optimize for the case when all lru items belong to one node and
others are empty?