From: Joe Damato <joe@dama.to>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Joe Damato <joe@dama.to>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: raise MEMCG_MAX for charges that fail without reclaiming
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:48:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260831174836.3102406-1-joe@dama.to> (raw)
Charges that exceed memory.max and return through the nomem label can
raise no event and simply return -ENOMEM.
A non-blocking charge can hit the limit, get rejected, but is not
visible in memory.events.
This was noticed in a production setting where bpf_mem_alloc() attempted
to refill its per-cpu freelists, which triggered a non-blocking charge
while at the limit.
Commit d6e103a757fa ("mm: memcontrol: do not miss MEMCG_MAX events for
enforced allocations") added raised_max_event to cover charges that are
force charged without ever reaching reclaim, but charges that are
rejected outright were left out. Getting an allocation failure without
the corresponding MEMCG_MAX event is unexpected and makes debugging and
monitoring harder.
Raise the event on the way out for rejected charges as well, by routing
the -ENOMEM return through the same exit path that already covers forced
charges. The existing behavior of raising a MEMCG_MAX event on every
charge/reclaim/retry iteration is left unchanged.
Tested with a module that performs accounted GFP_NOWAIT page allocations
from a task in a cgroup at its memory.max, and measures the resulting
memory.events:max delta. Without this patch the rejected charges raise
no event at all; with it the delta matches the number of rejected charges
exactly. A GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NORETRY control, which reaches reclaim, raises
the same two events per failed charge before and after, confirming the
existing charge/reclaim/retry accounting is unchanged.
Fixes: d6e103a757fa ("mm: memcontrol: do not miss MEMCG_MAX events for enforced allocations")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Joe Damato <joe@dama.to>
---
v2:
- v1 raised MEMCG_MAX once, as soon as the charge was known not to fit, which
collapsed the existing per-iteration events raised while a charge loops
through reclaim and retry. Instead leave that event where it is and route
the -ENOMEM return through the same exit path that already covers forced
charges, so only the rejected-charge case changes, as suggested by Shakeel.
- Add Fixes tag and CC stable, as suggested by Shakeel.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/cgroups/20260827233119.411152-1-joe@dama.to/
mm/memcontrol.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 1271d390b617..158b0562e8df 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2656,10 +2656,11 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
bool raised_max_event = false;
unsigned long pflags;
bool allow_spinning = gfpflags_allow_spinning(gfp_mask);
+ int ret = 0;
retry:
if (consume_stock(memcg, nr_pages))
- return 0;
+ return ret;
if (!allow_spinning)
/* Avoid the refill and flush of the older stock */
@@ -2770,16 +2771,11 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
* put the burden of reclaim on regular allocation requests
* and let these go through as privileged allocations.
*/
- if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_HIGH)))
- return -ENOMEM;
+ if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_HIGH))) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out;
+ }
force:
- /*
- * If the allocation has to be enforced, don't forget to raise
- * a MEMCG_MAX event.
- */
- if (!raised_max_event)
- __memcg_memory_event(mem_over_limit, MEMCG_MAX, allow_spinning);
-
/*
* The allocation either can't fail or will lead to more memory
* being freed very soon. Allow memory usage go over the limit
@@ -2789,7 +2785,15 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
if (do_memsw_account())
page_counter_charge(&memcg->memsw, nr_pages);
- return 0;
+out:
+ /*
+ * Don't forget to raise a MEMCG_MAX event for forced or rejected
+ * requests.
+ */
+ if (!raised_max_event)
+ __memcg_memory_event(mem_over_limit, MEMCG_MAX, allow_spinning);
+
+ return ret;
done_restock:
if (batch > nr_pages)
@@ -2848,7 +2852,7 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) &&
gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask))
__mem_cgroup_handle_over_high(gfp_mask);
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
static inline int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
--
2.53.0-Meta
next reply other threads:[~2026-08-31 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-31 17:48 Joe Damato [this message]
2026-08-31 17:52 ` [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: raise MEMCG_MAX for charges that fail without reclaiming 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=20260831174836.3102406-1-joe@dama.to \
--to=joe@dama.to \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=stable@vger.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