linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: decouple memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead from stock

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: <CAGj-7pUxYUDdRGaiFon=V2EG+3Ex5s9i7VvWbDH5T0v-7SE-CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 13:54:37 -0400
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...il.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, 
	Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: decouple memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead from stock_lock

(my migadu/linux.dev stopped working and I have to send through gmail,
sorry for any formatting issue)

On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 04:06:46PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> On 2025-04-11 10:55:31 [+0200], Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
>  > @@ -1964,10 +1964,10 @@ static int memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
>
>  >
>
>  > stock = &per_cpu(memcg_stock, cpu);
>
>  >
>
>  > - /* drain_obj_stock requires stock_lock */
>
>  > - local_lock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags);
>
>  > - drain_obj_stock(stock);
>
>  > - local_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags);
>
>  > + local_irq_save(flag);
>
>  I think for RT this is not great?
>

This is not a performance critical function, so I would not worry about
that.

>
> At least in theory, probably it's not
>
>  actually used together with cpu hotplug? As it relies on memcg_stats_lock()
>
>  I think no irq save/enable is necessary there. local_lock_irqsave wasn't
>
>  actually a irq disable on RT. I don't know if there's a handy wrapper for this.
>
>  No seeing the whole context but memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead() should be
>
>  invoked the control CPU while "cpu" is already gone. So the local_lock
>
>  should be acquired and the target CPU needs no locks since it is
>
>  offline. local_irq_save() will break things.
>

I don't see how local_irq_save() will break anything. We are working on
a stock of a dead remote cpu. We actually don't even need to disable irq
or need local cpu's local_lock. It is actually the calls to
__mod_memcg_lruvec_state() and __mod_memcg_state() in
__drain_obj_stock() which need irq-disabled on non-RT kernels and for
RT-kernels they already have preempt_disable_nested().

Disabling irq even on RT seems excessive but this is not a performance
critical code, so I don't see an issue unless there is
local_lock_irqsave() alternative which does not disables irqs on RT
kernels.