From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Yue Zhao <findns94@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: change memcg->oom_group access with atomic operations
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:15:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod6692L-mteZ9r+0Q1EZc_V7ZSQSwNtz+AbunFXZPKeUgg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y/UDmc3+uIErpanS@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:47 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 01:51:29PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:52:10PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:17 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 20, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 01:09:44PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:16:38PM +0800, Yue Zhao wrote:
> > > > >>> The knob for cgroup v2 memory controller: memory.oom.group
> > > > >>> will be read and written simultaneously by user space
> > > > >>> programs, thus we'd better change memcg->oom_group access
> > > > >>> with atomic operations to avoid concurrency problems.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Yue Zhao <findns94@gmail.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Yue!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm curious, have any seen any real issues which your patch is solving?
> > > > >> Can you, please, provide a bit more details.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO such details are not needed. oom_group is being accessed
> > > > > concurrently and one of them can be a write access. At least
> > > > > READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE is needed here.
> > > >
> > > > Needed for what?
> > >
> > > For this particular case, documenting such an access. Though I don't
> > > think there are any architectures which may tear a one byte read/write
> > > and merging/refetching is not an issue for this.
> >
> > Wouldn't a compiler be within its rights to implement a one byte store as:
> >
> > load-word
> > modify-byte-in-word
> > store-word
> >
> > and if this is a lockless store to a word which has an adjacent byte also
> > being modified by another CPU, one of those CPUs can lose its store?
> > And WRITE_ONCE would prevent the compiler from implementing the store
> > in that way.
>
> Even then it's not an issue in this case, as we end up with either 0 or 1,
> I don't see how we can screw things up here.
>
What do you mean by this is not an issue in this case? Yes, the
oom_group usage will be ok but we can not say anything about the
adjacent byte/fields.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-21 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-20 15:16 [PATCH] mm: change memcg->oom_group access with atomic operations Yue Zhao
2023-02-20 21:09 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-02-20 23:06 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-02-21 5:17 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-02-21 6:52 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-02-21 13:51 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-02-21 16:56 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-02-21 18:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-02-21 22:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-02-21 22:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-02-21 23:13 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-02-21 23:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-02-21 23:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-02-22 0:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-02-22 4:28 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-02-21 17:47 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-02-21 18:15 ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2023-02-21 18:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-02-22 9:01 ` David Laight
2023-02-21 17:00 ` Martin Zhao
2023-02-21 7:22 ` Muchun Song
2023-02-21 17:48 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-02-21 17:00 ` Martin Zhao
2023-02-21 18:02 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-02-21 8:26 ` Michal Hocko
2023-02-21 17:00 ` Martin Zhao
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=CALvZod6692L-mteZ9r+0Q1EZc_V7ZSQSwNtz+AbunFXZPKeUgg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=findns94@gmail.com \
--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=willy@infradead.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).