linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 6/9] memcg: sleep during flushing stats in safe contexts

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: <CAJD7tkYBO9QNZOyMt8WC0bd=wB9m1H3PHdxqPpWBx5HpUAS4Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 12:26:01 -0700
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
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 6/9] memcg: sleep during flushing stats in safe contexts

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:06 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:45:19AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:35 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 06:16:35AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > >  void mem_cgroup_flush_stats_ratelimited(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >       if (time_after64(jiffies_64, READ_ONCE(flush_next_time)))
> > > > -             mem_cgroup_flush_stats();
> > > > +             mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic();
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > This should probably be mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic_ratelimited().
> > >
> > > (Whee, kinda long, but that's alright. Very specialized caller...)
> >
> > It should, but the following patch makes it non-atomic anyway, so I
> > thought I wouldn't clutter the diff by renaming it here and then
> > reverting it back in the next patch.
> >
> > There is an argument for maintaining a clean history tho in case the
> > next patch is reverted separately (which is the reason I put it in a
> > separate patch to begin with) -- so perhaps I should rename it here to
> > mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic_ratelimited () and back to
> > mem_cgroup_flush_stats_ratelimited() in the next patch, just for
> > consistency?
>
> Sounds good to me. It's pretty minor churn.

Ack. Will do so for v2. Thanks!

>
> > > Btw, can you guys think of a reason against moving the threshold check
> > > into the common function? It would then apply to the time-limited
> > > flushes as well, but that shouldn't hurt anything. This would make the
> > > code even simpler:
> >
> > I think the point of having the threshold check outside the common
> > function is that the periodic flusher always flushes, regardless of
> > the threshold, to keep rstat flushing from critical contexts as cheap
> > as possible.
>
> Good point. Yeah, let's keep it separate then.

Agreed.

>
> > > > @@ -2845,7 +2845,7 @@ static void prepare_scan_count(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> > > >        * Flush the memory cgroup stats, so that we read accurate per-memcg
> > > >        * lruvec stats for heuristics.
> > > >        */
> > > > -     mem_cgroup_flush_stats();
> > > > +     mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic();
> > >
> > > I'm thinking this one could be non-atomic as well. It's called fairly
> > > high up in reclaim without any locks held.
> >
> > A later patch does exactly that. I put making the reclaim and refault
> > paths non-atomic in separate patches to easily revert them if we see a
> > regression. Let me know if this is too defensive and if you'd rather
> > have them squashed.
>
> No, good call. I should have just looked ahead first :-)