Re: [PATCH v3 12/13] execute the whole memcg freeing in rcu callback

[Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

Hello, Glauber.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:04:09PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> A lot of the initialization we do in mem_cgroup_create() is done with softirqs
> enabled. This include grabbing a css id, which holds &ss->id_lock->rlock, and
> the per-zone trees, which holds rtpz->lock->rlock. All of those signal to the
> lockdep mechanism that those locks can be used in SOFTIRQ-ON-W context. This
> means that the freeing of memcg structure must happen in a compatible context,
> otherwise we'll get a deadlock.

Lockdep requires lock to be softirq or irq safe iff the lock is
actually acquired from the said context.  Merely using a lock with bh
/ irq disabled doesn't signal that to lockdep; otherwise, we'll end up
with enormous number of spurious warnings.

> The reference counting mechanism we use allows the memcg structure to be freed
> later and outlive the actual memcg destruction from the filesystem. However, we
> have little, if any, means to guarantee in which context the last memcg_put
> will happen. The best we can do is test it and try to make sure no invalid
> context releases are happening. But as we add more code to memcg, the possible
> interactions grow in number and expose more ways to get context conflicts.
> 
> We already moved a part of the freeing to a worker thread to be context-safe
> for the static branches disabling. I see no reason not to do it for the whole
> freeing action. I consider this to be the safe choice.

And the above description too makes me scratch my head quite a bit.  I
can see what the patch is doing but can't understand the why.

* Why was it punting the freeing to workqueue anyway?  ISTR something
  about static_keys but my memory fails.  What changed?  Why don't we
  need it anymore?

* As for locking context, the above description seems a bit misleading
  to me.  Synchronization constructs involved there currently doesn't
  require softirq or irq safe context.  If that needs to change,
  that's fine but that's a completely different reason than given
  above.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun