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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zxq3R25YoRO9m7yT@tiehlicka>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:08:23 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
	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 24-10-24 13:32:53, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 12:45 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 24-10-24 10:26:15, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 04:50:37PM GMT, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 11:57:12PM -0700, 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>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
> > >
> > > Thanks Roman for the review. Based on Michal's question, I am planning
> > > to keep the RCU locking in the next version of this patch and folowup
> > > with clear understanding where we really need RCU and where we don't.
> >
> > I think it would be safer and easier to review if we drop each RCU
> > separately or in smaller batches.
> 
> FWIW if we go with this route, I agree with Roman's idea about
> replacing folio_memcg_lock()/unlock()
> with an explicit rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock(), and then having
> separate patches/series that remove the RCU annotations. If done in a
> separate series, we should comment the explicit RCU calls
> appropriately to reflect the fact that they should mostly be removed
> (or at least re-evaluated).

Agreed!

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs