linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org,  "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net-memcg: pass in gfp_t mask to mem_cgroup_charge_skmem()
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 00:54:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221013005431.wzjurocrdoozykl7@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221012173825.45d6fbf2@kernel.org>

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 05:38:25PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:17:38 -0700 Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Did the revert of this patch fix the issue you are seeing? The reason
> > I am asking is because this patch should not change the behavior.
> > Actually someone else reported the similar issue for UDP RX at [1] and
> > they tested the revert as well. The revert did not fix the issue for
> > them.
> > 
> > Wei has a better explanation at [2] why this patch is not the cause
> > for these issues.
> 
> We're talking TCP here, to be clear. I haven't tested a revert, yet (not
> that easy to test with a real workload) but I'm relatively confident the
> change did introduce an "unforced" call, specifically this bit:
> 
> @@ -2728,10 +2728,12 @@ int __sk_mem_raise_allocated(struct sock *sk, int size, int amt, int kind)
>  {
>  	struct proto *prot = sk->sk_prot;
>  	long allocated = sk_memory_allocated_add(sk, amt);
> +	bool memcg_charge = mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && sk->sk_memcg;
>  	bool charged = true;
>  
> -	if (mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && sk->sk_memcg &&
> -	    !(charged = mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(sk->sk_memcg, amt)))
> +	if (memcg_charge &&
> +	    !(charged = mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(sk->sk_memcg, amt,
> +						gfp_memcg_charge())))
> 
> where gfp_memcg_charge() is GFP_NOWAIT in softirq.
> 
> The above gets called from (inverted stack):
>  tcp_data_queue()
>  tcp_try_rmem_schedule(sk, skb, skb->truesize)
>  tcp_try_rmem_schedule()
>  sk_rmem_schedule()
>  __sk_mem_schedule()
>  __sk_mem_raise_allocated()
> 
> Is my confidence unjustified? :)
> 

Let me add Wei's explanation inline which is protocol independent:

	__sk_mem_raise_allocated() BEFORE the above patch is:
	- mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() gets called:
	    - try_charge() with GFP_NOWAIT gets called and  failed
	    - try_charge() with __GFP_NOFAIL
	    - return false
	- goto suppress_allocation:
	    - mem_cgroup_uncharge_skmem() gets called
	- return 0 (which means failure)

	AFTER the above patch, what happens in __sk_mem_raise_allocated() is:
	- mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() gets called:
	    - try_charge() with GFP_NOWAIT gets called and failed
	    - return false
	- goto suppress_allocation:
	    - We no longer calls mem_cgroup_uncharge_skmem()
	- return 0

So, before the patch, the memcg code may force charges but it will
return false and make the networking code to uncharge memcg for
SK_MEM_RECV.


  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-13  0:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-17 19:40 Wei Wang
2021-08-18 10:50 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2022-10-12 23:33 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-10-13  0:17   ` Shakeel Butt
2022-10-13  0:38     ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-10-13  0:54       ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2022-10-13  1:40         ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-10-13  3:16           ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-10-13  3:34             ` Wei Wang
2022-10-13  3:49               ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-10-13  4:04                 ` Wei Wang
2022-10-13  4:18                   ` Shakeel Butt
2022-10-13 21:49   ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-10-13 22:02     ` Eric Dumazet

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20221013005431.wzjurocrdoozykl7@google.com \
    --to=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=weiwan@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox