From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: tj@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org,
shakeelb@google.com, kernel-team@fb.com, void@manifault.com
Subject: [PATCH v2 4/5] cgroup: Removing racy check in test_memcg_sock()
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:56:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220423155619.3669555-5-void@manifault.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220423155619.3669555-1-void@manifault.com>
test_memcg_sock() in the cgroup memcg tests, verifies expected memory
accounting for sockets. The test forks a process which functions as a TCP
server, and sends large buffers back and forth between itself (as the TCP
client) and the forked TCP server. While doing so, it verifies that
memory.current and memory.stat.sock look correct.
There is currently a check in tcp_client() which asserts memory.current >=
memory.stat.sock. This check is racy, as between memory.current and
memory.stat.sock being queried, a packet could come in which causes
mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() to be invoked. This could cause memory.stat.sock
to exceed memory.current. Reversing the order of querying doesn't address
the problem either, as memory may be reclaimed between the two calls.
Instead, this patch just removes that assertion altogether, and instead
relies on the values_close() check that follows to validate the expected
accounting.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
---
tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
index e899b3f28c22..38d2054eefe6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c
@@ -993,9 +993,6 @@ static int tcp_client(const char *cgroup, unsigned short port)
if (current < 0 || sock < 0)
goto close_sk;
- if (current < sock)
- goto close_sk;
-
if (values_close(current, sock, 10)) {
ret = KSFT_PASS;
break;
--
2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-23 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-23 15:56 [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests David Vernet
2022-04-26 1:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low() David Vernet
2022-04-27 14:09 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-29 1:03 ` David Vernet
2022-04-29 9:26 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-06 16:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-09 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-10 0:44 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-10 17:43 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-11 17:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-12 17:27 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] cgroup: Account for memory_localevents in test_memcg_oom_group_leaf_events() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet [this message]
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] cgroup: Fix racy check in alloc_pagecache_max_30M() helper function David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests Michal Koutný
2022-05-12 17:30 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:44 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 0/4] memcontrol selftests fixups Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftests: memcg: Fix compilation Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 18:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 19:09 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in unprotected sibling Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:42 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 18:54 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 15:54 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 18:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests: memcg: Remove protection from top level memcg Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 18:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 0:24 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-18 0:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 15:44 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 19:14 ` David Vernet
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=20220423155619.3669555-5-void@manifault.com \
--to=void@manifault.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).