Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1588092152.git.chris@chrisdown.name> <d454fca5d6b38b74d8dc35141e8519b02089a698.1588092152.git.chris@chrisdown.name>
 <CALOAHbCotD1-+o_XZPU_4_i8Nn98r5F_5NpGVd=z6UG=rUcCmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200430011626.GA2754277@chrisdown.name> <CALOAHbCL_JJgcy9r99Kn81-o_t-fs_nQ+n7aKMHO-02QMCufEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200430014603.GB2754277@chrisdown.name>
In-Reply-To: <20200430014603.GB2754277@chrisdown.name>
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:49:46 +0800
Message-ID: <CALOAHbAzZUwGq3mnEtOcSetvAAm+m=X_KnQ2eS9U0QQVHggWYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: Avoid stale protection values when cgroup
 is above protection
To:     Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:46 AM Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> wrote:
>
> Yafang Shao writes:
> >My concern is why we add these barriers to memcg protection
> >specifically but don't add these barriers to the other memebers like
> >memcg->oom_group which has the same issue ?
> >What is the difference between these members and that members ?
>
> There are certainly more missing cases -- I didn't look at oom_group
> specifically, but it sounds likely if there's not other mitigating factors.
> Most of us have just been busy and haven't had time to comprehensively fix all
> the potential store and load tears.
>
> Tearing is another case of something that would be nice to fix once and for all
> in the memcg code, but isn't causing any significant issues for the timebeing.
> We should certainly aim to avoid introducing any new tearing opportunities,
> though :-)
>
> So the answer is just that improvement is incremental and we've not had the
> time to track down and fix them all. If you find more cases, feel free to send
> out the patches and I'll be happy to take a look.

Thanks for your suggestion.
I'm planning to add these barriers all over the memory cgroup code.

-- 
Thanks
Yafang