linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 02/28] mm: memcontrol: use folio_memcg_charged() to avoid potential rcu lock holding

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: <20250417144835.GE780688@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:48:35 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc: mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
	muchun.song@...ux.dev, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	david@...morbit.com, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
	yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev, nphamcs@...il.com, chengming.zhou@...ux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, hamzamahfooz@...ux.microsoft.com,
	apais@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/28] mm: memcontrol: use folio_memcg_charged() to
 avoid potential rcu lock holding

On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 10:45:06AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> If a folio isn't charged to the memory cgroup, holding an rcu read lock
> is needless. Users only want to know its charge status, so use
> folio_memcg_charged() here.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 11 ++++-------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 61488e45cab2..0fc76d50bc23 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -797,20 +797,17 @@ void __mod_lruvec_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum node_stat_item idx,
>  void __lruvec_stat_mod_folio(struct folio *folio, enum node_stat_item idx,
>  			     int val)
>  {
> -	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>  	pg_data_t *pgdat = folio_pgdat(folio);
>  	struct lruvec *lruvec;
>  
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	memcg = folio_memcg(folio);
> -	/* Untracked pages have no memcg, no lruvec. Update only the node */
> -	if (!memcg) {
> -		rcu_read_unlock();
> +	if (!folio_memcg_charged(folio)) {
> +		/* Untracked pages have no memcg, no lruvec. Update only the node */
>  		__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, idx, val);
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(folio_memcg(folio), pgdat);
>  	__mod_lruvec_state(lruvec, idx, val);
>  	rcu_read_unlock();

Hm, but untracked pages are the rare exception. It would seem better
for that case to take the rcu_read_lock() unnecessarily, than it is to
look up folio->memcg_data twice in the fast path?