Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 11:42:27 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, lkp@lists.01.org,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: page_counter: remove unneeded atomic ops for
 low/min
Message-ID: <YwShA6npuK0ZsjPI@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20220822001737.4120417-1-shakeelb@google.com>
 <20220822001737.4120417-2-shakeelb@google.com>
 <YwNSlZFPMgclrSCz@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <YwNX+vq9svMynVgW@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CALvZod720nwfP68OM2QtyyWJpOV5aO8xF6iuN0U2hpX9Pzj8PA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwOeocdkF/lacpKn@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YwOeocdkF/lacpKn@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 22-08-22 17:20:02, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 22-08-22 07:55:58, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 3:18 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > Unless I have missed anything this shouldn't break the correctness but I
> > > still have to think about the proportional distribution of the
> > > protection because that adds to the complexity here.
> > 
> > The patch is not changing any semantics. It is just removing an
> > unnecessary atomic xchg() for a specific scenario (min > 0 && min <
> > usage). I don't think there will be any change related to proportional
> > distribution of the protection.
> 
> Yes, I suspect you are right. I just remembered previous fixes
> like 503970e42325 ("mm: memcontrol: fix memory.low proportional
> distribution") which just made me nervous that this is a tricky area.
> 
> I will have another look tomorrow with a fresh brain and send an ack.

I cannot spot any problem. But I guess it would be good to have a little
comment to explain that races on the min_usage update (mentioned by Roman)
are acceptable and savings from atomic update are preferred.

The worst case I can imagine would be something like uncharge 4kB racing
with charge 2MB. The first reduces the protection (min_usage) while the other one
misses that update and doesn't increase it. But even then the effect
shouldn't be really large. At least I have hard time imagine this would
throw things off too much.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs