From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
To: Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, JP Kobryn <inwardvessel@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] mm: introduce bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup() BPF kfunc
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 21:00:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ia4ms2zwuqb.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aVQ1zvBE9csQYffT@google.com> (Matt Bobrowski's message of "Tue, 30 Dec 2025 20:27:58 +0000")
Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 08:41:53PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> Introduce a BPF kfunc to get a trusted pointer to the root memory
>> cgroup. It's very handy to traverse the full memcg tree, e.g.
>> for handling a system-wide OOM.
>>
>> It's possible to obtain this pointer by traversing the memcg tree
>> up from any known memcg, but it's sub-optimal and makes BPF programs
>> more complex and less efficient.
>>
>> bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup() has a KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL semantics,
>> however in reality it's not necessary to bump the corresponding
>> reference counter - root memory cgroup is immortal, reference counting
>> is skipped, see css_get(). Once set, root_mem_cgroup is always a valid
>> memcg pointer. It's safe to call bpf_put_mem_cgroup() for the pointer
>> obtained with bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(), it's effectively a no-op.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> mm/bpf_memcontrol.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> index 82eb95de77b7..187919eb2fe2 100644
>> --- a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> @@ -10,6 +10,25 @@
>>
>> __bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
>>
>> +/**
>> + * bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup - Returns a pointer to the root memory cgroup
>> + *
>> + * The function has KF_ACQUIRE semantics, even though the root memory
>> + * cgroup is never destroyed after being created and doesn't require
>> + * reference counting. And it's perfectly safe to pass it to
>> + * bpf_put_mem_cgroup()
>> + *
>> + * Return: A pointer to the root memory cgroup.
>> + */
>> +__bpf_kfunc struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
>> +{
>> + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + /* css_get() is not needed */
>> + return root_mem_cgroup;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * bpf_get_mem_cgroup - Get a reference to a memory cgroup
>> * @css: pointer to the css structure
>> @@ -64,6 +83,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_put_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
>>
>> BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_memcontrol_kfuncs)
>> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
>
> I feel as though relying on KF_ACQUIRE semantics here is somewhat
> odd. Users of this BPF kfunc will now be forced to call
> bpf_put_mem_cgroup() on the returned root_mem_cgroup, despite it being
> completely unnecessary.
A agree that it's annoying, but I doubt this extra call makes any
difference in the real world.
Also, the corresponding kernel code designed to hide the special
handling of the root cgroup. css_get()/css_put() are simple no-ops for
the root cgroup, but are totally valid. So in most places the root
cgroup is handled as any other, which simplifies the code. I guess
the same will be true for many bpf programs.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-30 21:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-23 4:41 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/6] mm: bpf kfuncs to access memcg data Roman Gushchin
2025-12-23 4:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/6] mm: declare memcg_page_state_output() in memcontrol.h Roman Gushchin
2025-12-23 4:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/6] mm: introduce BPF kfuncs to deal with memcg pointers Roman Gushchin
2025-12-23 4:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] mm: introduce bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup() BPF kfunc Roman Gushchin
2025-12-30 20:27 ` Matt Bobrowski
2025-12-30 21:00 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2025-12-31 7:41 ` Matt Bobrowski
2025-12-31 17:02 ` Roman Gushchin
2025-12-31 17:32 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-12-23 4:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/6] mm: introduce BPF kfuncs to access memcg statistics and events Roman Gushchin
2025-12-23 4:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/6] bpf: selftests: selftests for memcg stat kfuncs Roman Gushchin
2025-12-23 4:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/6] MAINTAINERS: add an entry for MM BPF extensions Roman Gushchin
2025-12-23 19:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/6] mm: bpf kfuncs to access memcg data Alexei Starovoitov
2025-12-23 19:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2025-12-24 3:41 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2025-12-23 19:46 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-12-24 3:01 ` Yafang Shao
2025-12-25 1:16 ` Roman Gushchin
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=7ia4ms2zwuqb.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com \
--to=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=inwardvessel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mattbobrowski@google.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeel.butt@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