On 2/9/21 2:22 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hello Tim,
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:29:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>> @@ -6849,7 +6850,9 @@ static void uncharge_page(struct page *page, struct
>> uncharge_gather *ug)
>> * exclusive access to the page.
>> */
>>
>> - if (ug->memcg != page_memcg(page)) {
>> + if (ug->memcg != page_memcg(page) ||
>> + /* uncharge batch update soft limit tree on a node basis */
>> + (ug->dummy_page && ug->nid != page_to_nid(page))) {
>
> The fix makes sense to me.
>
> However, unconditionally breaking up the batch by node can
> unnecessarily regress workloads in cgroups that do not have a soft
> limit configured, and cgroup2 which doesn't have soft limits at
> all. Consider an interleaving allocation policy for example.
>
> Can you please further gate on memcg->soft_limit != PAGE_COUNTER_MAX,
> or at least on !cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)?
>
Sure. Will fix this.
Tim
