[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZCMpklJZqwWHro0u@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 13:53:22 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/9] memcg: replace stats_flush_lock with an atomic
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 06:16:34AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> As Johannes notes in [1], stats_flush_lock is currently used to:
> (a) Protect updated to stats_flush_threshold.
> (b) Protect updates to flush_next_time.
> (c) Serializes calls to cgroup_rstat_flush() based on those ratelimits.
>
> However:
>
> 1. stats_flush_threshold is already an atomic
>
> 2. flush_next_time is not atomic. The writer is locked, but the reader
> is lockless. If the reader races with a flush, you could see this:
>
> if (time_after(jiffies, flush_next_time))
> spin_trylock()
> flush_next_time = now + delay
> flush()
> spin_unlock()
> spin_trylock()
> flush_next_time = now + delay
> flush()
> spin_unlock()
>
> which means we already can get flushes at a higher frequency than
> FLUSH_TIME during races. But it isn't really a problem.
>
> The reader could also see garbled partial updates, so it needs at
> least READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE protection.
>
> 3. Serializing cgroup_rstat_flush() calls against the ratelimit
> factors is currently broken because of the race in 2. But the race
> is actually harmless, all we might get is the occasional earlier
> flush. If there is no delta, the flush won't do much. And if there
> is, the flush is justified.
>
> So the lock can be removed all together. However, the lock also served
> the purpose of preventing a thundering herd problem for concurrent
> flushers, see [2]. Use an atomic instead to serve the purpose of
> unifying concurrent flushers.
>
> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230323172732.GE739026@cmpxchg.org/
> [2]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210716212137.1391164-2-shakeelb@google.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
With Shakeel's suggestion:
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists