linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] memcg: use css_get/put when charging/uncharging kmem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <519C838B.9060609@huawei.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 May 2013 16:36:27 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] memcg: use css_get/put when charging/uncharging kmem

On 2013/5/18 2:08, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:04:06PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Releases a reference taken in kmem_cgroup_css_offline in case
>> +	 * this last uncharge is racing with the offlining code or it is
>> +	 * outliving the memcg existence.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * The memory barrier imposed by test&clear is paired with the
>> +	 * explicit one in kmem_cgroup_css_offline.
> 
> Paired with the wmb to achieve what?
> 
>> +	 */
>>  	if (memcg_kmem_test_and_clear_dead(memcg))
>> -		mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
>> +		css_put(&memcg->css);
> 
> The other side is wmb, so there gotta be something which wants to read
> which were written before wmb here but the only thing after the
> barrier is css_put() which doesn't need such thing, so I'm lost on
> what the barrier pair is achieving here.
> 
> In general, please be *very* explicit about what's going on whenever
> something is depending on barrier pairs.  It'll make it easier for
> both the author and reviewers to actually understand what's going on
> and why it's necessary.
> 
> ...
>> @@ -5858,23 +5856,39 @@ static int memcg_init_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct cgroup_subsys *ss)
>>  	return mem_cgroup_sockets_init(memcg, ss);
>>  }
>>  
>> -static void kmem_cgroup_destroy(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> +static void kmem_cgroup_css_offline(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>  {
>> -	mem_cgroup_sockets_destroy(memcg);
>> +	if (!memcg_kmem_is_active(memcg))
>> +		return;
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * kmem charges can outlive the cgroup. In the case of slab
>> +	 * pages, for instance, a page contain objects from various
>> +	 * processes. As we prevent from taking a reference for every
>> +	 * such allocation we have to be careful when doing uncharge
>> +	 * (see memcg_uncharge_kmem) and here during offlining.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * The idea is that that only the _last_ uncharge which sees
>> +	 * the dead memcg will drop the last reference. An additional
>> +	 * reference is taken here before the group is marked dead
>> +	 * which is then paired with css_put during uncharge resp. here.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * Although this might sound strange as this path is called when
>> +	 * the reference has already dropped down to 0 and shouldn't be
>> +	 * incremented anymore (css_tryget would fail) we do not have
> 
> Hmmm?  offline is called on cgroup destruction regardless of css
> refcnt.  The above comment seems a bit misleading.
> 

The comment is wrong. I'll fix it.

>> +	 * other options because of the kmem allocations lifetime.
>> +	 */
>> +	css_get(&memcg->css);
>> +
>> +	/* see comment in memcg_uncharge_kmem() */
>> +	wmb();
>>  	memcg_kmem_mark_dead(memcg);
> 
> Is the wmb() trying to prevent reordering between css_get() and
> memcg_kmem_mark_dead()?  If so, it isn't necessary - the compiler
> isn't allowed to reorder two atomic ops (they're all asm volatiles)
> and the visibility order is guaranteed by the nature of the two
> operations going on here - both perform modify-and-test on one end of
> the operations.
> 

Yeah, I think you're right.

> It could be argued that having memory barriers is better for
> completeness of mark/test interface but then those barriers should
> really moved into memcg_kmem_mark_dead() and its clearing counterpart.
> 
> While it's all clever and dandy, my recommendation would be just using
> a lock for synchronization.  It isn't a hot path.  Why be clever?
> 

I don't quite like adding a lock not to protect data but just ensure code
orders.

Michal, what's your preference? I want to be sure that everyone is happy
so the next version will hopefully be the last version.

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