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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox