lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: change memcg->oom_group access with atomic operations
From
Date


> On Feb 21, 2023, at 13:17, 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?
>
> I mean it’s obviously not a big deal to put READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() here, but I struggle to imagine a scenario when it will make any difference. IMHO it’s easier to justify a proper atomic operation here, even if it’s most likely an overkill.
>
> My question is very simple: the commit log mentions “… to avoid concurrency problems”, so I wonder what problems are these.

I think there is no difference in the assembly code between them in most
cases. The only intention that I can think of is to avoid the potential
complaint (data race) emitted by KCSAN.

>
> Also there are other similar cgroup interfaces without READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE().

If we decide to fix, then we should fix all.

Thanks.

>
> Thanks!


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:29    [W:0.104 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site