linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] memcg: no irq disable for memcg stock lock

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-7pWqvtWj2nSOaQwoLbwUrVcLfKc0U2TcmxuSB87dWmZcgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 16:03:30 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: 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>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
	"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>, 
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] memcg: no irq disable for memcg stock lock

On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 11:29 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 5:18 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > There is no need to disable irqs to use memcg per-cpu stock, so let's
> > just not do that. One consequence of this change is if the kernel while
> > in task context has the memcg stock lock and that cpu got interrupted.
> > The memcg charges on that cpu in the irq context will take the slow path
> > of memcg charging. However that should be super rare and should be fine
> > in general.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
> > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> > ---
> >  mm/memcontrol.c | 17 +++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index cd81c70d144b..f8b9c7aa6771 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1858,7 +1858,6 @@ static bool consume_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages,
> >  {
> >         struct memcg_stock_pcp *stock;
> >         uint8_t stock_pages;
> > -       unsigned long flags;
> >         bool ret = false;
> >         int i;
> >
> > @@ -1866,8 +1865,8 @@ static bool consume_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages,
> >                 return ret;
> >
> >         if (gfpflags_allow_spinning(gfp_mask))
> > -               local_lock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.lock, flags);
> > -       else if (!local_trylock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.lock, flags))
> > +               local_lock(&memcg_stock.lock);
> > +       else if (!local_trylock(&memcg_stock.lock))
> >                 return ret;
>
> I don't think it works.
> When there is a normal irq and something doing regular GFP_NOWAIT
> allocation gfpflags_allow_spinning() will be true and
> local_lock() will reenter and complain that lock->acquired is
> already set... but only with lockdep on.

Yes indeed. I dropped the first patch and didn't fix this one
accordingly. I think the fix can be as simple as checking for
in_task() here instead of gfp_mask. That should work for both RT and
non-RT kernels.