From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751470AbeEDOVD (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2018 10:21:03 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:48296 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751262AbeEDOVC (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2018 10:21:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 16:20:57 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Kirill Tkhai , akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@chromium.org, riel@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, marcos.souza.org@gmail.com, hoeun.ryu@gmail.com, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, gs051095@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Balbir Singh , Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: Replace mm->owner with mm->memcg Message-ID: <20180504142056.GA26151@redhat.com> References: <20180426192818.GX17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180427070848.GA17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87r2n01q58.fsf@xmission.com> <87o9hz2sw3.fsf@xmission.com> <87h8nr2sa3.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20180502084708.GC26305@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180502132026.GB16060@cmpxchg.org> <87lgd1zww0.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20180503133338.GA23401@redhat.com> <87y3h0x0qg.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y3h0x0qg.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov writes: > > > On 05/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > >> +static void mem_cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *tsk) > >> +{ > >> + struct cgroup_subsys_state *css; > >> + > >> + rcu_read_lock(); > >> + css = task_css(tsk, memory_cgrp_id); > >> + if (css && css_tryget(css)) > >> + task_update_memcg(tsk, mem_cgroup_from_css(css)); > >> + rcu_read_unlock(); > >> +} > > > > Why do we need it? > > > > The child's mm->memcg was already initialized by mm_init_memcg() and we can't > > race with migrate until cgroup_threadgroup_change_end() ? > > I admit I missed the cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin > cgroup_threadgroup_change_end pair in fs fork. In this case it doesn't > matter because mm_init_memcg is called from: > > copy_mm > dup_mm > mm_init > > And copy_mm is called before we call cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin. > So the race remains. Ah yes, you are right. > We could move move cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin earlier, to remove > the need for mem_cgroup_fork. But I have not analyzed that. No, cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin() was called early and this was wrong, see 568ac888215c7fb2fabe8ea739b00ec3c1f5d440. Actually there were more problems, say copy_net() could deadlock because cleanup_net() does do_wait() with net_mutex held. OK, what about exec() ? mm_init_memcg() initializes bprm->mm->memcg early in bprm_mm_init(). What if the execing task migrates before exec_mmap() ? Oleg.