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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ocwpveyzmog7kaetvfmihzyrxlw5drz647jcsjcziv2gmejyyj@vksg3ntjea2g>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:38:19 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	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 06:54:01PM GMT, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 10:23:49AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I took a really quick look and based on it I believe it is safe.
> Shakeel, can you, please, check too and preferably keep your code intact.
> I think it's better to remove it all together, rather than do it in two steps.
> If we really need rcu somewhere, we can replace folio_memcg_lock()/unlock()
> with an explicit rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock().
> 

Yup going through that and till now it seems safe. Hopefully I will have
the update by the evening.