From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Meta kernel team <kernel-team@meta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] memcg: disable kmem charging in nmi for unsupported arch
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 11:20:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5utpywqjf47slmygpyfwmveabp65kzhq3sqf52j53hxs5owmxg@67ccuh4pmqsh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ukn75zvkgbyjmrhmy7rmt6dx24r47vy6npfdvjx6wxiduxeqnm@kkjoam7gft4v>
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 08:37:23AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 11:30:17AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 5/16/25 08:49, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > The memcg accounting and stats uses this_cpu* and atomic* ops. There are
> > > archs which define CONFIG_HAVE_NMI but does not define
> > > CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NMI_SAFE_THIS_CPU_OPS and ARCH_HAVE_NMI_SAFE_CMPXCHG, so
> > > memcg accounting for such archs in nmi context is not possible to
> > > support. Let's just disable memcg accounting in nmi context for such
> > > archs.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 5 +++++
> > > mm/memcontrol.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > index f7848f73f41c..53920528821f 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_cookie {
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > >
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NMI_SAFE_THIS_CPU_OPS) || \
> > > + !defined(CONFIG_HAVE_NMI) || defined(ARCH_HAVE_NMI_SAFE_CMPXCHG)
> > > +#define MEMCG_SUPPORTS_NMI_CHARGING
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > #define MEM_CGROUP_ID_SHIFT 16
> > >
> > > struct mem_cgroup_id {
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index e17b698f6243..dface07f69bb 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -2647,11 +2647,26 @@ static struct obj_cgroup *current_objcg_update(void)
> > > return objcg;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#ifdef MEMCG_SUPPORTS_NMI_CHARGING
> > > +static inline bool nmi_charging_allowed(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return true;
> > > +}
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline bool nmi_charging_allowed(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > __always_inline struct obj_cgroup *current_obj_cgroup(void)
> > > {
> > > struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > > struct obj_cgroup *objcg;
> > >
> > > + if (in_nmi() && !nmi_charging_allowed())
> >
> > Exchange the two as the latter is compile-time constant, so it can shortcut
> > the in_nmi() check away in all the good cases?
> >
>
> Oh I thought compiler would figure that out but now that I think about
> it, it can only do so if the first condition does not have any
> side-effects and though in_nmi() does not, I am not sure if compiler can
> extract that information.
>
> I will fix this and make sure that compiler is doing the right thing.
So, gcc 11.5 generates the same code irrespective of checking in_nmi()
first or second i.e. avoid in_nmi() check altogether on x86_64. I will
still rearrange the checks to not leave this optimization to compilers.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-16 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-16 6:49 [PATCH v2 0/5] memcg: nmi-safe kmem charging Shakeel Butt
2025-05-16 6:49 ` [PATCH 1/5] memcg: disable kmem charging in nmi for unsupported arch Shakeel Butt
2025-05-16 9:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-05-16 15:37 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-05-16 18:20 ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2025-05-16 6:49 ` [PATCH 2/5] memcg: nmi safe memcg stats for specific archs Shakeel Butt
2025-05-16 9:43 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-05-16 6:49 ` [PATCH 3/5] memcg: add nmi-safe update for MEMCG_KMEM Shakeel Butt
2025-05-16 9:43 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-05-16 6:49 ` [PATCH 4/5] memcg: nmi-safe slab stats updates Shakeel Butt
2025-05-16 9:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-05-16 6:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] memcg: make memcg_rstat_updated nmi safe Shakeel Butt
2025-05-16 9:45 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-05-16 15:34 ` Shakeel Butt
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=5utpywqjf47slmygpyfwmveabp65kzhq3sqf52j53hxs5owmxg@67ccuh4pmqsh \
--to=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=yosry.ahmed@linux.dev \
/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