From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f175.google.com (mail-pl1-f175.google.com [209.85.214.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACBCC29E10B for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2026 03:39:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.175 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773977987; cv=none; b=KXWI1TTFt+tSiAkJwmLsfpak9+p+xugCgOjwTGzVOk36yGVUygXlLZpIOikLGYIVIg7SfR+6d9gyVeV8lq1Fwfk0EAdC5eZSAnQ3izoeES3oxTKXKZI2H+WmSHPFDtKKkf/0vIc/FFDw25wBIJZDNlynrC7gSh1D7y4RS40sh7w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773977987; c=relaxed/simple; bh=P/YXk8VBR+UZp/m/PSuTOoFARBhxT4ayCpwB7zK7i+8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hcGEFKqh8mdZhhujcldUwHVLGmXBhAX2WUI/raanFq5Jvjd73dIWUPtk10ZgA0J2xMR1NGxkXb9CzN+EZ+yxUF8lcBDD71jtphhO0mwSKwXIRKXBPTVi1ovAV11CtkkFcIw+uv22BmcmJ6WcASyJdtMLH0wgzQ6aZozvPa8bMJU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=HDkuQyc5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.175 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="HDkuQyc5" Received: by mail-pl1-f175.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2aeab6ff148so33655ad.1 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 20:39:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1773977986; x=1774582786; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=P/YXk8VBR+UZp/m/PSuTOoFARBhxT4ayCpwB7zK7i+8=; b=HDkuQyc5wdWOrTTiAF0r9uAO359HQMWWYIm33aXXfxUY9cwsIjUXjtW72USk73aCUI +EMCuE+37tDq8q5a03AtBR5XGrUesWsubS5x/Y7o/3RgQ4dcL6wJs7O8bBjcNRwcPkYL ipSPuyC9GHVqUG5Ro936VcWb8dDmP0Hxfdqpl/zquh62Fe5UgBmepRdbZMzXad9OU45R ILoaZU7/nxdMeRcTStOSoTOVhBxXo/IYY7Iq0BC0JPCZKoY3QKZ50EAfX1CBIZFg8SaN iWRdOLDXYRoVCJNd7fyQC5x3d5OyVgDOcYUrPnSDk8IPQccAz9oz+QHdGp6mkWEbsgcY BtwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1773977986; x=1774582786; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=P/YXk8VBR+UZp/m/PSuTOoFARBhxT4ayCpwB7zK7i+8=; b=tFgJgl4CoJ3VkTNbxuxwzbS9YP3AdwH/nTSDArnwRFy4T1FsOEdEucch+Xsgu+JMYA oU3HwoIK+qNM3MrIuYFvfLF4D2c4MPgPVss6e0qm195/fYoi7CMa59ZC7vVJD/wEen+1 xv+IXNdyoT0SeOhN1qPii9yC5oFl0tP0ukl8WjHiHtMkPiW0bOzvvtO147noyz8qXb7o xo0TlfRKRZxc1dQhtvfkgxBk2Z+/iqjgWZQqzlYPhkKWAMj57bZ/JsYu+tc4qXQhoegC xOVRboTc3jowhU21UeNK0MtfvHNcHx4RyV7FNnqhxbPgZQKnnjZZ57wCksNFfsMbMzZM y5Dw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV1ySWAlrHskVK9E/7CueRr1zsSgifJZYdTZ+6vT3yecS3U1JLEf0hBt4FmfPp/hWd8VKC64BdQazXjfBs=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw2CSbP9M24t/nZ5rSzS5vpCHItCGgtGBXOclhVXs4FQehcPEn/ Er04Ugh/Q5SsX3+aPPM8q+RByvCOtwoHukqYvFgOOyH74P7/pMh/DgEfOrFd7zpP5g== X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzzsOvfld4mC6Bu98kGuI7dPG1PvayuZE/W5iv0facVP50Rl+Y4FsPo1jU9ZGg2 MTp/LDR4Pw9zCabiB0FZ7zvECZEPiYs4wvdOqLBILumfEgjoRwUckyikTd95S/eeWFMaD2jOEUt xIiePVfsBNoI2YEJIOdgzmKCeYp+v1WDcKojBKYqGXh4Cc5GXoixOXVOyTWs3W5hZBKq94Q8J5Q A5OWuegGnfRZfxhjTK1Z8i2bEbhYoDfEGJCP0Ejz7FVuCsy8pydKJ7K0+x4ysWbgWjcIkV4AWRE 2rTSaxfq/GJvb3fRd2WkmhA2kOc2p8QDUsFOwMcRkqiHHgrNSJBOYdSG1cFJ+idmf3EKznAj3as 30UCrr5RfCZObvu2AOWFBkIjGhChd3OUjCrb9+fBhljFALSjVqCwq52f2QY8uQ5DvDv9cKFaQhi bBFDQxCWBlDYQRmdlYNn8T26GTXh6aiZBLYxH80xnkG+GH6waeUYQLjR+dnEw8PYgwKb9Rv/ef/ fdG X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f652:b0:297:f2a0:e564 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2b0836e92e2mr1101815ad.11.1773977985452; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 20:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (206.238.125.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.125.238.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-35bd412b73bsm502858a91.15.2026.03.19.20.39.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 19 Mar 2026 20:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 03:39:40 +0000 From: Bing Jiao To: Michal Hocko Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, axelrasmussen@google.com, baohua@kernel.org, bhe@redhat.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, chrisl@kernel.org, david@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com, kasong@tencent.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ljs@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, nphamcs@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, shikemeng@huaweicloud.com, weixugc@google.com, yosry@kernel.org, youngjun.park@lge.com, yuanchu@google.com, zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/memcontrol: fix reclaim_options leak in try_charge_memcg() Message-ID: References: <20260318215629.2849052-1-bingjiao@google.com> <20260318221957.2979346-1-bingjiao@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 10:29:15AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 18-03-26 22:19:46, Bing Jiao wrote: > > In try_charge_memcg(), the 'reclaim_options' variable is initialized > > once at the start of the function. However, the function contains a > > retry loop. If reclaim_options were modified during an iteration > > (e.g., by encountering a memsw limit), the modified state would > > persist into subsequent retries. > > > > This leads to incorrect reclaim behavior. Specifically, > > MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP is cleared when the combined memcg->memsw limit > > is reached. After reclaimation attemps, a subsequent retry may > > successfully charge memcg->memsw but fail on the memcg->memory charge. > > In this case, swapping should be permitted, but the carried-over state > > prevents it. > > Have you noticed this happening in practice or is this based on the code > reading? Hi, Michal, thanks for the ack. This issue was identified during code reading, when I was analyzing the memsw limit behavior in try_charge_memcg(); specifically how retries are handled when demotion is disabled (the demotion patch itself was dropped). Best, Bing