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: <20210425075410.19255-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210425075410.19255-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 15:03:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod5dOwLAbShLKP2o=nZVcPNJ2pwR-EDNfSTX77H3VVK5+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: fix root_mem_cgroup charging
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Xiongchun duan <duanxiongchun@bytedance.com>,
        fam.zheng@bytedance.com, zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 12:57 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> The below scenario can cause the page counters of the root_mem_cgroup
> to be out of balance.
>
> CPU0:                                   CPU1:
>
> objcg = get_obj_cgroup_from_current()
> obj_cgroup_charge_pages(objcg)
>                                         memcg_reparent_objcgs()
>                                             // reparent to root_mem_cgroup
>                                             WRITE_ONCE(iter->memcg, parent)
>     // memcg == root_mem_cgroup
>     memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(objcg)
>     // do not charge to the root_mem_cgroup
>     try_charge(memcg)
>
> obj_cgroup_uncharge_pages(objcg)
>     memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(objcg)
>     // uncharge from the root_mem_cgroup
>     refill_stock(memcg)
>         drain_stock(memcg)
>             page_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memory)
>
> get_obj_cgroup_from_current() never returns a root_mem_cgroup's objcg,
> so we never explicitly charge the root_mem_cgroup. And it's not
> going to change. It's all about a race when we got an obj_cgroup
> pointing at some non-root memcg, but before we were able to charge it,
> the cgroup was gone, objcg was reparented to the root and so we're
> skipping the charging. Then we store the objcg pointer and later use
> to uncharge the root_mem_cgroup.
>
> This can cause the page counter to be less than the actual value.
> Although we do not display the value (mem_cgroup_usage) so there
> shouldn't be any actual problem, but there is a WARN_ON_ONCE in
> the page_counter_cancel(). Who knows if it will trigger? So it
> is better to fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>

Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>