linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-next v3] mm/memcg: Properly handle memcg_stock access for PREEMPT

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: <b82efbad-1eb2-9441-ab0b-cbb3d2b5eac6@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:46:53 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next v3] mm/memcg: Properly handle memcg_stock access for
 PREEMPT_RT

On 12/17/21 06:42, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-12-14 09:44:12 [-0500], Waiman Long wrote:
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -2096,7 +2096,12 @@ struct obj_stock {
>>   #endif
>>   };
>>   
>> +/*
>> + * The local_lock protects the whole memcg_stock_pcp structure including
>> + * the embedded obj_stock structures.
>> + */
>>   struct memcg_stock_pcp {
>> +	local_lock_t lock;
>>   	struct mem_cgroup *cached; /* this never be root cgroup */
>>   	unsigned int nr_pages;
>>   	struct obj_stock task_obj;
>> @@ -2145,7 +2150,7 @@ static bool consume_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
>>   	if (nr_pages > MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH)
>>   		return ret;
>>   
>> -	local_irq_save(flags);
>> +	local_lock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.lock, flags);
> This still does not explain why the lock is acquired here where it
> appears to be unrelated to memcg_stock.lock.

consume_stock() can be called in both task and irq context. irq context 
may include softirq where interrupt may have been enabled and something 
get interrupt again. The original code just do a local_irq_save() 
without documenting why we are doing so. So I didn't see a need to add 
comment about that.

>>   
>>   	stock = this_cpu_ptr(&memcg_stock);
>>   	if (memcg == stock->cached && stock->nr_pages >= nr_pages) {
>> @@ -2779,29 +2784,34 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(struct obj_cgroup *objcg)
>>    * which is cheap in non-preempt kernel. The interrupt context object stock
>>    * can only be accessed after disabling interrupt. User context code can
>>    * access interrupt object stock, but not vice versa.
>> + *
>> + * This task and interrupt context optimization is disabled for PREEMPT_RT
>> + * as there is no performance gain in this case and changes will be made to
>> + * irq_obj only.
>> + *
>> + * For non-PREEMPT_RT, we are not replacing preempt_disable() by local_lock()
>> + * as nesting of task_obj and irq_obj are allowed which may cause lockdep
>> + * splat if local_lock() is used. Using separate local locks will complicate
>> + * the interaction between obj_stock and the broader memcg_stock object.
>>    */
>>   static inline struct obj_stock *get_obj_stock(unsigned long *pflags)
>>   {
>> -	struct memcg_stock_pcp *stock;
>> -
>> -	if (likely(in_task())) {
>> +	if (likely(in_task()) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
>>   		*pflags = 0UL;
>>   		preempt_disable();
>> -		stock = this_cpu_ptr(&memcg_stock);
>> -		return &stock->task_obj;
>> +		return this_cpu_ptr(&memcg_stock.task_obj);
> Do we need to keep the memcg_stock.task_obj for !RT?
> I'm not really convinced that disabling either preemption or interrupts
> is so much better compared to actual locking locking with lockdep
> annotation. Looking at the history, I'm also impressed by that fact that
> disabling/ enabling interrupts is *so* expensive that all this is
> actually worth it.

For !RT with voluntary or no preemption, preempt_disable() is just a 
compiler barrier. So it is definitely cheaper than disabling interrupt. 
The performance benefit is less with preemptible but !RT kernel. 
Microbenchmark testing shows a performance improvement of a few percents 
depending on the exact benchmark.

Cheers,
Longman