FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: memcontrol: raise MEMCG_MAX for charges that fail without reclaiming" failed to apply to 6.12-stable tree

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: memcontrol: raise MEMCG_MAX for charges that fail without reclaiming" failed to apply to 6.12-stable tree

[Sasha Levin]

The patch below does not apply to the 6.12-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.

To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:

git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.12.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x 374f65b1481992eb6b9c6bffd53f3afa5c2e94cf
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '20261107051933-failed-6.12-374f65b14819@kernel.org' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.12.y' 'HEAD^..'

Thanks,
Sasha

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 374f65b1481992eb6b9c6bffd53f3afa5c2e94cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joe Damato <joe@dama.to>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:48:35 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: raise MEMCG_MAX for charges that fail without
 reclaiming

Charges that exceed memory.max and return through the nomem label can
raise no event and simply return -ENOMEM.

A non-blocking charge can hit the limit, get rejected, but is not visible
in memory.events.

This was noticed in a production setting where bpf_mem_alloc() attempted
to refill its per-cpu freelists, which triggered a non-blocking charge
while at the limit.

Commit d6e103a757fa ("mm: memcontrol: do not miss MEMCG_MAX events for
enforced allocations") added raised_max_event to cover charges that are
force charged without ever reaching reclaim, but charges that are rejected
outright were left out.  Getting an allocation failure without the
corresponding MEMCG_MAX event is unexpected and makes debugging and
monitoring harder.

Raise the event on the way out for rejected charges as well, by routing
the -ENOMEM return through the same exit path that already covers forced
charges.  The existing behavior of raising a MEMCG_MAX event on every
charge/reclaim/retry iteration is left unchanged.

Tested with a module that performs accounted GFP_NOWAIT page allocations
from a task in a cgroup at its memory.max, and measures the resulting
memory.events:max delta.  Without this patch the rejected charges raise no
event at all; with it the delta matches the number of rejected charges
exactly.  A GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NORETRY control, which reaches reclaim,
raises the same two events per failed charge before and after, confirming
the existing charge/reclaim/retry accounting is unchanged.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20260831174836.3102406-1-joe@dama.to
Fixes: d6e103a757fa ("mm: memcontrol: do not miss MEMCG_MAX events for enforced allocations")
Signed-off-by: Joe Damato <joe@dama.to>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
---
 mm/memcontrol.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index d5ebe83eae3ef..aeaa09e01d70e 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2685,10 +2685,11 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	bool raised_max_event = false;
 	unsigned long pflags;
 	bool allow_spinning = gfpflags_allow_spinning(gfp_mask);
+	int ret = 0;
 
 retry:
 	if (consume_stock(memcg, nr_pages))
-		return 0;
+		return ret;
 
 	if (!allow_spinning)
 		/* Avoid the refill and flush of the older stock */
@@ -2799,16 +2800,11 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	 * put the burden of reclaim on regular allocation requests
 	 * and let these go through as privileged allocations.
 	 */
-	if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_HIGH)))
-		return -ENOMEM;
+	if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_HIGH))) {
+		ret = -ENOMEM;
+		goto out;
+	}
 force:
-	/*
-	 * If the allocation has to be enforced, don't forget to raise
-	 * a MEMCG_MAX event.
-	 */
-	if (!raised_max_event)
-		__memcg_memory_event(mem_over_limit, MEMCG_MAX, allow_spinning);
-
 	/*
 	 * The allocation either can't fail or will lead to more memory
 	 * being freed very soon.  Allow memory usage go over the limit
@@ -2818,7 +2814,15 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	if (do_memsw_account())
 		page_counter_charge(&memcg->memsw, nr_pages);
 
-	return 0;
+out:
+	/*
+	 * Don't forget to raise a MEMCG_MAX event for forced or rejected
+	 * requests.
+	 */
+	if (!raised_max_event)
+		__memcg_memory_event(mem_over_limit, MEMCG_MAX, allow_spinning);
+
+	return ret;
 
 done_restock:
 	if (batch > nr_pages)
@@ -2877,7 +2881,7 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	    !(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) &&
 	    gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask))
 		__mem_cgroup_handle_over_high(gfp_mask);
-	return 0;
+	return ret;
 }
 
 static inline int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
-- 
2.53.0

[PATCH 6.12.y] mm: memcontrol: raise MEMCG_MAX for charges that fail without reclaiming

[Sasha Levin]

From: Joe Damato <joe@dama.to>

[ Upstream commit 374f65b1481992eb6b9c6bffd53f3afa5c2e94cf ]

Charges that exceed memory.max and return through the nomem label can
raise no event and simply return -ENOMEM.

A non-blocking charge can hit the limit, get rejected, but is not visible
in memory.events.

This was noticed in a production setting where bpf_mem_alloc() attempted
to refill its per-cpu freelists, which triggered a non-blocking charge
while at the limit.

Commit d6e103a757fa ("mm: memcontrol: do not miss MEMCG_MAX events for
enforced allocations") added raised_max_event to cover charges that are
force charged without ever reaching reclaim, but charges that are rejected
outright were left out.  Getting an allocation failure without the
corresponding MEMCG_MAX event is unexpected and makes debugging and
monitoring harder.

Raise the event on the way out for rejected charges as well, by routing
the -ENOMEM return through the same exit path that already covers forced
charges.  The existing behavior of raising a MEMCG_MAX event on every
charge/reclaim/retry iteration is left unchanged.

Tested with a module that performs accounted GFP_NOWAIT page allocations
from a task in a cgroup at its memory.max, and measures the resulting
memory.events:max delta.  Without this patch the rejected charges raise no
event at all; with it the delta matches the number of rejected charges
exactly.  A GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NORETRY control, which reaches reclaim,
raises the same two events per failed charge before and after, confirming
the existing charge/reclaim/retry accounting is unchanged.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20260831174836.3102406-1-joe@dama.to
Fixes: d6e103a757fa ("mm: memcontrol: do not miss MEMCG_MAX events for enforced allocations")
Signed-off-by: Joe Damato <joe@dama.to>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
[ sashal: Replaced __memcg_memory_event(..., allow_spinning) with the existing memcg_memory_event() helper. ]
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 mm/memcontrol.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 4d1caa4faf69f..46769bce0603a 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2182,10 +2182,11 @@ int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	bool drained = false;
 	bool raised_max_event = false;
 	unsigned long pflags;
+	int ret = 0;
 
 retry:
 	if (consume_stock(memcg, nr_pages))
-		return 0;
+		return ret;
 
 	if (!do_memsw_account() ||
 	    page_counter_try_charge(&memcg->memsw, batch, &counter)) {
@@ -2297,16 +2298,11 @@ int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	 * put the burden of reclaim on regular allocation requests
 	 * and let these go through as privileged allocations.
 	 */
-	if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_HIGH)))
-		return -ENOMEM;
+	if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_HIGH))) {
+		ret = -ENOMEM;
+		goto out;
+	}
 force:
-	/*
-	 * If the allocation has to be enforced, don't forget to raise
-	 * a MEMCG_MAX event.
-	 */
-	if (!raised_max_event)
-		memcg_memory_event(mem_over_limit, MEMCG_MAX);
-
 	/*
 	 * The allocation either can't fail or will lead to more memory
 	 * being freed very soon.  Allow memory usage go over the limit
@@ -2316,7 +2312,15 @@ int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	if (do_memsw_account())
 		page_counter_charge(&memcg->memsw, nr_pages);
 
-	return 0;
+out:
+	/*
+	 * Don't forget to raise a MEMCG_MAX event for forced or rejected
+	 * requests.
+	 */
+	if (!raised_max_event)
+		memcg_memory_event(mem_over_limit, MEMCG_MAX);
+
+	return ret;
 
 done_restock:
 	if (batch > nr_pages)
@@ -2375,7 +2379,7 @@ int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	    !(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) &&
 	    gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask))
 		mem_cgroup_handle_over_high(gfp_mask);
-	return 0;
+	return ret;
 }
 
 /**
-- 
2.53.0