linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Fix dropped memcg from mem cgroup soft limit tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YEXhfJhmXrLuxGWB@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 8 Mar 2021 09:34:17 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: Fix dropped memcg from mem cgroup soft limit
 tree

On Fri 05-03-21 11:07:59, Tim Chen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/5/21 1:11 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 04-03-21 09:35:08, Tim Chen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/18/21 11:13 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 4e41695356fb ("memory controller: soft limit reclaim on contention")
> >>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  mm/memcontrol.c | 6 +++++-
> >>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>>> index ed5cc78a8dbf..a51bf90732cb 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>>> @@ -3505,8 +3505,12 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order,
> >>>>  			loop > MEM_CGROUP_MAX_SOFT_LIMIT_RECLAIM_LOOPS))
> >>>>  			break;
> >>>>  	} while (!nr_reclaimed);
> >>>> -	if (next_mz)
> >>>> +	if (next_mz) {
> >>>> +		spin_lock_irq(&mctz->lock);
> >>>> +		__mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(next_mz, mctz, excess);
> >>>> +		spin_unlock_irq(&mctz->lock);
> >>>>  		css_put(&next_mz->memcg->css);
> >>>> +	}
> >>>>  	return nr_reclaimed;
> >>>>  }
> >>>>  
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> 2.20.1
> >>>
> >>
> >> Mel,
> >>
> >> Reviewing this patch a bit more, I realize that there is a chance that the removed
> >> next_mz could be inserted back to the tree from a memcg_check_events
> >> that happen in between.  So we need to make sure that the next_mz
> >> is indeed off the tree and update the excess value before adding it
> >> back.  Update the patch to the patch below.
> > 
> > This scenario is certainly possible but it shouldn't really matter much
> > as __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded bails out when the node is on the tree
> > already.
> > 
> 
> Makes sense. We should still update the excess value with
> 
> +		excess = soft_limit_excess(next_mz->memcg);
> +		__mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(next_mz, mctz, excess);
> 
> before doing insertion.  The excess value was recorded from previous
> mz in the loop and needs to be updated to that of next_mz.

Yes. Sorry, I have missed that part previously.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs