Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time

[Glauber Costa <glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>]

On 05/17/2012 01:13 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 17:11:17 -0300
> Glauber Costa<glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>  wrote:
>
>> We call the destroy function when a cgroup starts to be removed,
>> such as by a rmdir event.
>>
>> However, because of our reference counters, some objects are still
>> inflight. Right now, we are decrementing the static_keys at destroy()
>> time, meaning that if we get rid of the last static_key reference,
>> some objects will still have charges, but the code to properly
>> uncharge them won't be run.
>>
>> This becomes a problem specially if it is ever enabled again, because
>> now new charges will be added to the staled charges making keeping
>> it pretty much impossible.
>>
>> We just need to be careful with the static branch activation:
>> since there is no particular preferred order of their activation,
>> we need to make sure that we only start using it after all
>> call sites are active. This is achieved by having a per-memcg
>> flag that is only updated after static_key_slow_inc() returns.
>> At this time, we are sure all sites are active.
>>
>> This is made per-memcg, not global, for a reason:
>> it also has the effect of making socket accounting more
>> consistent. The first memcg to be limited will trigger static_key()
>> activation, therefore, accounting. But all the others will then be
>> accounted no matter what. After this patch, only limited memcgs
>> will have its sockets accounted.
>
> So I'm scratching my head over what the actual bug is, and how
> important it is.  AFAICT it will cause charging stats to exhibit some
> inaccuracy when memcg's are being torn down?
>
> I don't know how serious this in in the real world and so can't decide
> which kernel version(s) we should fix.
>
> When fixing bugs, please always fully describe the bug's end-user
> impact, so that I and others can make these sorts of decisions.

Hi Andrew.

I believe that was described in patch 0/2 ?
In any case, this is something we need fixed, but it is not -stable 
material or anything.

The bug leads to misaccounting when we quickly enable and disable limit 
in a loop. We have a synthetic script to demonstrate that.