linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm, memcg: narrow the scope of percpu_charge

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: <0b0f943f-0ea7-b7de-f321-e38bf1089b42@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 17:54:05 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <shakeelb@...gle.com>, <willy@...radead.org>, <alexs@...nel.org>,
        <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm, memcg: narrow the scope of percpu_charge_mutex

On 2021/8/2 14:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 31-07-21 10:29:52, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2021/7/30 14:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 29-07-21 20:06:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 08:57:52PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>> Since percpu_charge_mutex is only used inside drain_all_stock(), we can
>>>>> narrow the scope of percpu_charge_mutex by moving it here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>>> index 6580c2381a3e..a03e24e57cd9 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>>> @@ -2050,7 +2050,6 @@ struct memcg_stock_pcp {
>>>>>  #define FLUSHING_CACHED_CHARGE	0
>>>>>  };
>>>>>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct memcg_stock_pcp, memcg_stock);
>>>>> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_charge_mutex);
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>>>>>  static void drain_obj_stock(struct obj_stock *stock);
>>>>> @@ -2209,6 +2208,7 @@ static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
>>>>>   */
>>>>>  static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> +	static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_charge_mutex);
>>>>>  	int cpu, curcpu;
>>>>
>>>> It's considered a good practice to protect data instead of code paths. After
>>>> the proposed change it becomes obvious that the opposite is done here: the mutex
>>>> is used to prevent a simultaneous execution of the code of the drain_all_stock()
>>>> function.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the lock was indeed to orchestrate callers more than any
>>> data structure consistency.
>>>  
>>>> Actually we don't need a mutex here: nobody ever sleeps on it. So I'd replace
>>>> it with a simple atomic variable or even a single bitfield. Then the change will
>>>> be better justified, IMO.
>>>
>>> Yes, mutex can be replaced by an atomic in a follow up patch.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for both of you. It's a really good suggestion. What do you mean is something like below？
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 616d1a72ece3..508a96e80980 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -2208,11 +2208,11 @@ static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
>>   */
>>  static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
>>  {
>> -       static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_charge_mutex);
>>         int cpu, curcpu;
>> +       static atomic_t drain_all_stocks = ATOMIC_INIT(-1);
>>         /* If someone's already draining, avoid adding running more workers. */
>> -       if (!mutex_trylock(&percpu_charge_mutex))
>> +       if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&drain_all_stocks))
>>                 return;
>>         /*
>>          * Notify other cpus that system-wide "drain" is running
>> @@ -2244,7 +2244,7 @@ static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
>>                 }
>>         }
>>         put_cpu();
>> -       mutex_unlock(&percpu_charge_mutex);
>> +       atomic_dec(&drain_all_stocks);
> 
> Yes this would work. I would just s@...in_all_stocks@...iners@ or
> something similar to better express the intention.
> 

Sounds good. Will do it in v2. Many thanks.

>>  }
>>
>>  static int memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
>