Re: [PATCH] mm: change memcg->oom_group access with atomic operations

Shakeel Butt
2023-02-21T18:15:45Z

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.