Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm/hugetlb: Clean up map/global resv accounting when allocate

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 02:48:12PM +0000, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 12:06:34AM +0000, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> >> >
> >> > -	/* If this allocation is not consuming a reservation, charge it now.
> >> > +	/*
> >> > +	 * If this allocation is not consuming a per-vma reservation,
> >> > +	 * charge the hugetlb cgroup now.
> >> >  	 */
> >> > -	deferred_reserve = map_chg || cow_from_owner;
> >> > -	if (deferred_reserve) {
> >> > +	if (map_chg) {
> >> >  		ret = hugetlb_cgroup_charge_cgroup_rsvd(
> >> >  			idx, pages_per_huge_page(h), &h_cg);
> >> 
> >> Should hugetlb_cgroup_charge_cgroup_rsvd() be called when map_chg == MAP_CHG_ENFORCED?
> >
> > This looks like a pretty niche use case, though I would say yes.
> >
> > I don't think I take a lot of consideration here when drafting the patch,
> > as the change here should have kept the old behavior: map_chg grows into
> > the tristate so that we can drop deferred_reserve, OTOH nothing should
> > change from such behavior of cgroup charging.
> >
> > When it happens, it means the owner process CoWed a private hugetlb folio
> > which will enforce bypassing the vma reservation.  Here bypassing the vma
> > check makes sense to me, because the new to-be-cowed folio X will replace
> > another folio Y, which should have consumed the private vma resv at this
> > specific index. So there's no way the to-be-cowed folio X can have anything
> > to do with the vma reservation..
> >
> > Besides the vma reservation, I don't see why this folio allocation needs to
> > be any more special. IOW, it should still go through all rest checks and
> > fail the process properly if the check fails, that should include any form
> > of cgroups (either hugetlb or memcg), IMHO.
> >
> > Do you have any specific thought on this path?
> 
> I re-read the code, and I hope this understanding is right:
> 
> When a user sets "rsvd.max_usage_in_bytes" to X, the user is saying that
> within this cgroup, the maximum memory that can be reserved in the vma
> reservation is X.

Right, and the allocation may or may not attach to a vma reservation at
all.  In this case it skips the vma reservation however will still need to
be accounted; there should have other similar cases where vma resv doesn't
count, e.g. MAP_NORESERVE.  For those we do accounting on reservations only
until allocation time.

> 
> Hence even when this CoW is performed, this should count towards the
> cgroup's "rsvd.max_usage_in_bytes" and so yes, it should be charged.
> 
> I think I misunderstood the context on cgroup charging earlier and hence
> I thought it shouldn't be charged, but I agree with you after
> re-reading.

Thanks.  I'll hold another 1-2 days then I'll respin.

-- 
Peter Xu