[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210509175403.ec3f33f293ed69f2a9b275a6@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 17:54:03 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc: guro@...com, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
shakeelb@...gle.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
duanxiongchun@...edance.com, fam.zheng@...edance.com,
zhengqi.arch@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: fix root_mem_cgroup charging
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:54:10 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:
> The below scenario can cause the page counters of the root_mem_cgroup
> to be out of balance.
>
> CPU0: CPU1:
>
> objcg = get_obj_cgroup_from_current()
> obj_cgroup_charge_pages(objcg)
> memcg_reparent_objcgs()
> // reparent to root_mem_cgroup
> WRITE_ONCE(iter->memcg, parent)
> // memcg == root_mem_cgroup
> memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(objcg)
> // do not charge to the root_mem_cgroup
> try_charge(memcg)
>
> obj_cgroup_uncharge_pages(objcg)
> memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(objcg)
> // uncharge from the root_mem_cgroup
> refill_stock(memcg)
> drain_stock(memcg)
> page_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memory)
>
> get_obj_cgroup_from_current() never returns a root_mem_cgroup's objcg,
> so we never explicitly charge the root_mem_cgroup. And it's not
> going to change. It's all about a race when we got an obj_cgroup
> pointing at some non-root memcg, but before we were able to charge it,
> the cgroup was gone, objcg was reparented to the root and so we're
> skipping the charging. Then we store the objcg pointer and later use
> to uncharge the root_mem_cgroup.
>
> This can cause the page counter to be less than the actual value.
> Although we do not display the value (mem_cgroup_usage) so there
> shouldn't be any actual problem, but there is a WARN_ON_ONCE in
> the page_counter_cancel(). Who knows if it will trigger? So it
> is better to fix it.
>
It sounds like Roman will be acking this, but some additional reviewer
attention would be helpful, please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists