[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231012134726.kx3rcm7vkgxe3nib@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:47:26 +0000
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: kmem: scoped objcg protection
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:09:28PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Switch to a scope-based protection of the objcg pointer on slab/kmem
> allocation paths. Instead of using the get_() semantics in the
> pre-allocation hook and put the reference afterwards, let's rely
> on the fact that objcg is pinned by the scope.
>
> It's possible because:
> 1) if the objcg is received from the current task struct, the task is
> keeping a reference to the objcg.
> 2) if the objcg is received from an active memcg (remote charging),
> the memcg is pinned by the scope and has a reference to the
> corresponding objcg.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin (Cruise) <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Other than one nit below:
Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 6 +++++
> mm/memcontrol.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> mm/slab.h | 10 +++-----
> 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index 277690af383d..0e53b890f063 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -1769,6 +1769,12 @@ bool mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled(void);
> int __memcg_kmem_charge_page(struct page *page, gfp_t gfp, int order);
> void __memcg_kmem_uncharge_page(struct page *page, int order);
>
> +/*
> + * The returned objcg pointer is safe to use without additional
> + * protection within a scope, refer to the implementation for the
> + * additional details.
> + */
Let's add the definition of scope in the above comment as well like
set_active_memcg and slab memcg hooks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists