linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] memcg-v1: remove memcg move locking code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <kr6fjny7aqni4habduj2uqfznusozkku3xeq62bjscb5ovwxog@ccgl3kxufmma>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:23:49 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, 
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] memcg-v1: remove memcg move locking code

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 11:16:52AM GMT, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 23-10-24 23:57:12, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > The memcg v1's charge move feature has been deprecated. There is no need
> > to have any locking or protection against the moving charge. Let's
> > proceed to remove all the locking code related to charge moving.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
> > ---
> > -/**
> > - * folio_memcg_lock - Bind a folio to its memcg.
> > - * @folio: The folio.
> > - *
> > - * This function prevents unlocked LRU folios from being moved to
> > - * another cgroup.
> > - *
> > - * It ensures lifetime of the bound memcg.  The caller is responsible
> > - * for the lifetime of the folio.
> > - */
> > -void folio_memcg_lock(struct folio *folio)
> > -{
> > -	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > -	unsigned long flags;
> > -
> > -	/*
> > -	 * The RCU lock is held throughout the transaction.  The fast
> > -	 * path can get away without acquiring the memcg->move_lock
> > -	 * because page moving starts with an RCU grace period.
> > -         */
> > -	rcu_read_lock();
> 
> Is it safe to remove the implicit RCU?

Good question. I think it will be safe to keep the RCU in this patch and
in the followup examine each place and decide to remove RCU or not.

Thanks for the review.