From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Peilin Ye <yepeilin@google.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Meta kernel team <kernel-team@meta.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:04:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250922160443.f48bb14e2d055e6e954cd874@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250922220203.261714-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 15:02:03 -0700 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote:
> Generally memcg charging is allowed from all the contexts including NMI
> where even spinning on spinlock can cause locking issues. However one
> call chain was missed during the addition of memcg charging from any
> context support. That is try_charge_memcg() -> memcg_memory_event() ->
> cgroup_file_notify().
>
> The possible function call tree under cgroup_file_notify() can acquire
> many different spin locks in spinning mode. Some of them are
> cgroup_file_kn_lock, kernfs_notify_lock, pool_workqeue's lock. So, let's
> just skip cgroup_file_notify() from memcg charging if the context does
> not allow spinning.
>
> Alternative approach was also explored where instead of skipping
> cgroup_file_notify(), we defer the memcg event processing to irq_work
> [1]. However it adds complexity and it was decided to keep things simple
> until we need more memcg events with !allow_spinning requirement.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/5qi2llyzf7gklncflo6gxoozljbm4h3tpnuv4u4ej4ztysvi6f@x44v7nz2wdzd/ [1]
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Fixes a possible kernel deadlock, yes?
Is a cc:stable appropriate and can we identify a Fixes: target?
Thanks.
(Did it ever generate lockdep warnings?)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-22 23:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-22 22:02 [PATCH v2] memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed Shakeel Butt
2025-09-22 23:03 ` Andrew Morton
2025-09-22 23:22 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-09-22 23:43 ` Andrew Morton
2025-09-22 23:57 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-09-22 23:04 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2025-09-22 23:39 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-09-22 23:55 ` Andrew Morton
2025-09-23 0:00 ` Shakeel Butt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250922160443.f48bb14e2d055e6e954cd874@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yepeilin@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.