OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [-mm PATCH 0/9] Memory controller introduction (v4)
Re: [-mm PATCH 6/9] Memory controller add per container LRU and reclaim (v4) [message #19590 is a reply to message #19515] Tue, 07 August 2007 18:30 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Vaidyanathan Srinivas is currently offline  Vaidyanathan Srinivas
Messages: 49
Registered: February 2007
Member
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>>> +unsigned long mem_container_isolate_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>>> +					struct list_head *dst,
>>> +					unsigned long *scanned, int order,
>>> +					int mode, struct zone *z,
>>> +					struct mem_container *mem_cont,
>>> +					int active)
>>> +{
>>> +	unsigned long nr_taken = 0;
>>> +	struct page *page;
>>> +	unsigned long scan;
>>> +	LIST_HEAD(mp_list);
>>> +	struct list_head *src;
>>> +	struct meta_page *mp;
>>> +
>>> +	if (active)
>>> +		src = &mem_cont->active_list;
>>> +	else
>>> +		src = &mem_cont->inactive_list;
>>> +
>>> +	for (scan = 0; scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src); scan++) {
>>> +		mp = list_entry(src->prev, struct meta_page, lru);
>> what prevents another thread from freeing mp here?
> 
> mem_cont->lru_lock protects the list and validity of mp.  If we hold
> mem_cont->lru_lock for this entire loop, then we preserve the validity
> of mp.  However that will be holding up container charge and uncharge.
> 
> This entire routing is called with zone->lru_lock held by the caller.
>  So within a zone, this routine is serialized.
> 
> However page uncharge may race with isolate page.  But will that lead
> to any corruption of the list?  We may be holding the lock for too
> much time just to be on the safe side.
> 
> Please allow us some time to verify whether this is indeed inadequate
> locking that will lead to corruption of the list.

I did few runs and checked for ref_cnt on meta_page and there seems to
be a race between isolate pages and uncharge.  We will probably have
to increase the ref_cnt on meta_page while we are isolating it.  I am
trying to see if we can solve the problem by manipulating the ref_cnt
on the meta_page.

--Vaidy

> Thanks for pointing out this situation.
> --Vaidy
> 
>>> +		spin_lock(&mem_cont->lru_lock);
>>> +		if (mp)
>>> +			page = mp->page;
>>> +		spin_unlock(&mem_cont->lru_lock);
>>> +		if (!mp)
>>> +			continue;
>> YAMAMOTO Takashi
>> _______________________________________________
>> Containers mailing list
>> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
> 
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH] Add ability to print calltraces tighter on i386
Next Topic: containers mini-summit?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Aug 31 22:09:54 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08542 seconds