Re: [PATCH mmotm] memcg: fix for documentation (Re: [BUGFIX][PATCHmmotm] memcg fix swap accounting leak (v3))

From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Date: Mon Dec 15 2008 - 23:54:38 EST


On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:02:30 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Sorry for late reply.
>
> > @@ -111,9 +111,40 @@ Under below explanation, we assume CONFI
> > (b) If the SwapCache has been mapped by processes, it has been
> > charged already.
> >
> > - In case (a), we charge it. In case (b), we don't charge it.
> > - (But racy state between (a) and (b) exists. We do check it.)
> > - At charging, a charge recorded in swap_cgroup is moved to page_cgroup.
> > + This swap-in is one of the most complicated work. In do_swap_page(),
> > + following events occur when pte is unchanged.
> > +
> > + (1) the page (SwapCache) is looked up.
> > + (2) lock_page()
> > + (3) try_charge_swapin()
> > + (4) reuse_swap_page() (may call delete_swap_cache())
> > + (5) commit_charge_swapin()
> > + (6) swap_free().
> > +
> > + Considering following situation for example.
> > +
> > + (A) The page has not been charged before (2) and reuse_swap_page()
> > + doesn't call delete_from_swap_cache().
> > + (B) The page has not been charged before (2) and reuse_swap_page()
> > + calls delete_from_swap_cache().
> > + (C) The page has been charged before (2) and reuse_swap_page() doesn't
> > + call delete_from_swap_cache().
> > + (D) The page has been charged before (2) and reuse_swap_page() calls
> > + delete_from_swap_cache().
> > +
> > + memory.usage/memsw.usage changes to this page/swp_entry will be
> > + Case (A) (B) (C) (D)
> > + Event
> > + Before (2) 0/ 1 0/ 1 1/ 1 1/ 1
> > + ===========================================
> > + (3) +1/+1 +1/+1 +1/+1 +1/+1
> > + (4) - 0/ 0 - -1/ 0
> > + (5) 0/ 1 0/-1 -1/-1 0/ 0
> > + (6) - - - 0/-1
> > + ===========================================
> > + Result 1/ 1 1/1 1/ 1 1/ 1
> > +
> > + In any cases, charges to this page should be 1/ 1.
> >
> I've verified that charges will result in valid values by tracing source code
> in all of these cases, but in case of (B) I don't think commit_charge_swapin
> does memsw-- because PageSwapCache has been cleared already. swap_free does
> memsw-- in this case.
>
> I attached a fix patch.
>
you're right. it comes from this version's new change....sorry.

Acked-by; KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezaw.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


> Thanks,
> Daisuke Nishimura.
>
> ===
> From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> fix for documentation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt | 6 +++---
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt b/Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt
> index 3c1458a..08d4d3e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt
> @@ -139,10 +139,10 @@ Under below explanation, we assume CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTRL_SWAP=y.
> ===========================================
> (3) +1/+1 +1/+1 +1/+1 +1/+1
> (4) - 0/ 0 - -1/ 0
> - (5) 0/ 1 0/-1 -1/-1 0/ 0
> - (6) - - - 0/-1
> + (5) 0/-1 0/ 0 -1/-1 0/ 0
> + (6) - 0/-1 - 0/-1
> ===========================================
> - Result 1/ 1 1/1 1/ 1 1/ 1
> + Result 1/ 1 1/ 1 1/ 1 1/ 1
>
> In any cases, charges to this page should be 1/ 1.
>
>

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