[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y0qsa95d.fsf@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 14:20:46 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, Peilin Ye <yepeilin@...gle.com>, Kumar Kartikeya
Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Meta kernel team
<kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> writes:
> Generally memcg charging is allowed from all the contexts including NMI
> where even spinning on spinlock can cause locking issues. However one
> call chain was missed during the addition of memcg charging from any
> context support. That is try_charge_memcg() -> memcg_memory_event() ->
> cgroup_file_notify().
>
> The possible function call tree under cgroup_file_notify() can acquire
> many different spin locks in spinning mode. Some of them are
> cgroup_file_kn_lock, kernfs_notify_lock, pool_workqeue's lock. So, let's
> just skip cgroup_file_notify() from memcg charging if the context does
> not allow spinning.
Hmm, what about OOM events? Losing something like MEMCG_LOW doesn't look
like a bit deal, but OOM events can be way more important.
Should we instead preserve the event (e.g. as a pending_event_mask) and
raise it on the next occasion / from a different context?
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists