Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06CEC61DA3 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230369AbjBUXjL (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 18:39:11 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52008 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230372AbjBUXi3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 18:38:29 -0500 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9E0527D54; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:38:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94DDFB810A2; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:38:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47446C4339B; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:38:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1677022705; bh=YC2cKPAIdiP72jz3kueKr+ivgSgpcT42R6071kn+pqk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PXcWPlPjCh1klB6LcXlRN66knyftqtpw2w/ZHa2HmJvDNuFjsMWNCTl5tHTxB27Hm ksSDOyf8f0femr7ntrXehQZ0u+8U7zE5CXPqMZ/H+S5/8HNC1eoGNAqEn9GL+KZdUX /JmBTFAqWWHQqKyYmN/COvP1RH6+bHao7R3Ge1dn8VPjPo9OH4i0ytVm8UWTRH0887 jV8CFZ/pPRatqpcvp8eLq3YTM2jaZWO6QRK/pXzpsgkYBwG1j3YqK/fLGo+Up6cQDd W2wdFKyDaPt0AzVQIPMd/U/kKzGsNibmedFSZRsabj7z+AmG+rOc2Leum5XbWKfPuy W0yyXJoynbOEQ== Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F22DD5C065D; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:38:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:38:24 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Roman Gushchin , Matthew Wilcox , Marco Elver , Yue Zhao , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: change memcg->oom_group access with atomic operations Message-ID: <20230221233824.GM2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20230220230624.lkobqeagycx7bi7p@google.com> <6563189C-7765-4FFA-A8F2-A5CC4860A1EF@linux.dev> <20230221182359.GJ2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <20230221223811.GK2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:38 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 02:23:31PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:23:59AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 08:56:59AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > > +Paul & Marco > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 5:51 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:52:10PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:17 PM Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 01:09:44PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:16:38PM +0800, Yue Zhao wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> The knob for cgroup v2 memory controller: memory.oom.group > > > > > > > > >>> will be read and written simultaneously by user space > > > > > > > > >>> programs, thus we'd better change memcg->oom_group access > > > > > > > > >>> with atomic operations to avoid concurrency problems. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Yue Zhao > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Yue! > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I'm curious, have any seen any real issues which your patch is solving? > > > > > > > > >> Can you, please, provide a bit more details. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO such details are not needed. oom_group is being accessed > > > > > > > > > concurrently and one of them can be a write access. At least > > > > > > > > > READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE is needed here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Needed for what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For this particular case, documenting such an access. Though I don't > > > > > > > think there are any architectures which may tear a one byte read/write > > > > > > > and merging/refetching is not an issue for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't a compiler be within its rights to implement a one byte store as: > > > > > > > > > > > > load-word > > > > > > modify-byte-in-word > > > > > > store-word > > > > > > > > > > > > and if this is a lockless store to a word which has an adjacent byte also > > > > > > being modified by another CPU, one of those CPUs can lose its store? > > > > > > And WRITE_ONCE would prevent the compiler from implementing the store > > > > > > in that way. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Willy for pointing this out. If the compiler can really do this > > > > > then [READ|WRITE]_ONCE are required here. I always have big bad > > > > > compiler lwn article open in a tab. I couldn't map this transformation > > > > > to ones mentioned in that article. Do we have name of this one? > > > > > > > > No, recent compilers are absolutely forbidden from doing this sort of > > > > thing except under very special circumstances. > > > > > > > > Before C11, compilers could and in fact did do things like this. This is > > > > after all a great way to keep the CPU's vector unit from getting bored. > > > > Unfortunately for those who prize optimization above all else, doing > > > > this can introduce data races, for example: > > > > > > > > char a; > > > > char b; > > > > spin_lock la; > > > > spin_lock lb; > > > > > > > > void change_a(char new_a) > > > > { > > > > spin_lock(&la); > > > > a = new_a; > > > > spin_unlock(&la); > > > > } > > > > > > > > void change_b(char new_b) > > > > { > > > > spin_lock(&lb); > > > > b = new_b; > > > > spin_unlock(&lb); > > > > } > > > > > > > > If the compiler "optimized" that "a = new_a" so as to produce a non-atomic > > > > read-modify-write sequence, it would be introducing a data race. > > > > And since C11, the compiler is absolutely forbidden from introducing > > > > data races. So, again, no, the compiler cannot invent writes to > > > > variables. > > > > > > > > What are those very special circumstances? > > > > > > > > 1. The other variables were going to be written to anyway, and > > > > none of the writes was non-volatile and there was no ordering > > > > directive between any of those writes. > > > > > > > > 2. The other variables are dead, as in there are no subsequent > > > > reads from them anywhere in the program. Of course in that case, > > > > there is no need to read the prior values of those variables. > > > > > > > > 3. All accesses to all of the variables are visible to the compiler, > > > > and the compiler can prove that there are no concurrent accesses > > > > to any of them. For example, all of the variables are on-stack > > > > variables whose addresses are never taken. > > > > > > > > Does that help, or am I misunderstanding the question? > > > > > > Thank you, Paul! > > > > > > So it seems like READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() are totally useless here. > > > Or I still miss something? > > > > Yes, given that the compiler will already avoid inventing data-race-prone > > C-language accesses to shared variables, so if that was the only reason > > that you were using READ_ONCE() or WRITE_ONCE(), then READ_ONCE() and > > WRITE_ONCE() won't be helping you. > > > > Or perhaps better to put it a different way... The fact that the compiler > > is not permitted to invent data-racy reads and writes is exactly why > > you do not normally need READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() for accesses in > > lock-based critical sections. Instead, you only need READ_ONCE() and > > WRITE_ONCE() when you have lockless accesses to the same shared variables. > > This is lockless access to memcg->oom_group potentially from multiple > CPUs, so, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() are needed, right? Agreed, lockless concurrent accesses should use READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(). And if either conflicting access is lockless, it is lockless. ;-) Thanx, Paul