Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/6] memcg: Use trylock to access memcg stock_lock.

Alexei Starovoitov
2024-12-20T00:40:00Z

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:52 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 19-12-24 08:27:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 19-12-24 08:08:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > All that being said, the message I wanted to get through is that atomic
> > > (NOWAIT) charges could be trully reentrant if the stock local lock uses
> > > trylock. We do not need a dedicated gfp flag for that now.
> >
> > And I want to add. Not only we can achieve that, I also think this is
> > desirable because for !RT this will be no functional change and for RT
> > it makes more sense to simply do deterministic (albeit more costly
> > page_counter update) than spin over a lock to use the batch (or learn
> > the batch cannot be used).
>
> So effectively this on top of yours
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index f168d223375f..29a831f6109c 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1768,7 +1768,7 @@ static bool consume_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages,
> return ret;
>
> if (!local_trylock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags)) {
> - if (gfp_mask & __GFP_TRYLOCK)
> + if (!gfpflags_allow_blockingk(gfp_mask))
> return ret;
> local_lock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags);

I don't quite understand such a strong desire to avoid the new GFP flag
especially when it's in mm/internal.h. There are lots of bits left.
It's not like PF_* flags that are limited, but fine
let's try to avoid GFP_TRYLOCK_BIT.

You're correct that in !RT the above will work, but in RT
spin_trylock vs spin_lock might cause spurious direct page_counter
charge instead of batching. It's still correct and unlikely to
cause performance issues, so probably fine, but in other
places like slub.c gfpflags_allow_blocking() is too coarse.
All of GFP_NOWAIT will fall into such 'trylock' category,
more slub bits will be trylock-ing and potentially returning ENOMEM
for existing GPF_NOWAIT users which is not great.

I think we can do better, though it's a bit odd to indicate
trylock gfp mode by _absence_ of flags instead of presence
of __GFP_TRYLOCK bit.

How about the following:

diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
index ff9060af6295..f06131d5234f 100644
--- a/include/linux/gfp.h
+++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
@@ -39,6 +39,17 @@ static inline bool gfpflags_allow_blocking(const
gfp_t gfp_flags)
return !!(gfp_flags & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM);
}

+static inline bool gfpflags_allow_spinning(const gfp_t gfp_flags)
+{
+ /*
+ * !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM -> direct claim is not allowed.
+ * !__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM -> it's not safe to wake up kswapd.
+ * All GFP_* flags including GFP_NOWAIT use one or both flags.
+ * try_alloc_pages() is the only API that doesn't specify either flag.
+ */
+ return !(gfp_flags & __GFP_RECLAIM);
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
#define OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM ZONE_HIGHMEM
#else
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index f168d223375f..545d345c22de 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1768,7 +1768,7 @@ static bool consume_stock(struct mem_cgroup
*memcg, unsigned int nr_pages,
return ret;

if (!local_trylock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags)) {
- if (gfp_mask & __GFP_TRYLOCK)
+ if (!gfpflags_allow_spinning(gfp_mask))
return ret;
local_lock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags);
}

If that's acceptable then such an approach will work for
my slub.c reentrance changes too.
GPF_NOWAIT users will not be affected.
The slub's trylock mode will be only for my upcoming try_kmalloc()
that won't use either gfp_*_reclaim flag.