From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B526C433E0 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F8064FCE for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:42:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C9F8064FCE Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 32E558D018D; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 04:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2DF358D0148; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 04:42:32 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1A5DF8D018D; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 04:42:32 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0056.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.56]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1EC8D0148 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 04:42:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B10E1DE8 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:42:31 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77903474502.18.DA7D4CA Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF352C0007C9 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:42:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1615369350; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8qLZFJropWuTtqmng7j/uyvEO07U2wdIf80qxM4muyg=; b=lSDSOY1L1zj619JWFQuby2KTVCU26IkluUftoipiD8kBZ1LPFlwt1muJ5NEedjn9QC6ilf rWkTetl8hkNmE3ozGWCjgdUIlKwqEPldWEixmPPq2A/sY+d96fK2bhje1TWQD+3g5v7th+ c/t0DM9sMHrxxJW3Ni07ZgbOalDRRtA= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD183AE42; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:42:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:42:29 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt , Vasily Averin , Cgroups , Linux MM , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] memcg: accounting for allocations called with disabled BH Message-ID: References: <18a0ae77-89ff-2679-ab19-378e38ce2be2@virtuozzo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: nhgkor9grrn7x6qjhmo3qrgza5n77gm4 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AF352C0007C9 Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf22; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1615369348-777341 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue 09-03-21 12:18:28, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 11:39:41AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:04 AM Vasily Averin wrote: > > > > > > in_interrupt() check in memcg_kmem_bypass() is incorrect because > > > it does not allow to account memory allocation called from task context > > > with disabled BH, i.e. inside spin_lock_bh()/spin_unlock_bh() sections > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin > > > > In that file in_interrupt() is used at other places too. Should we > > change those too? > > Yes, it seems so. Let me prepare a fix (it seems like most of them were > introduced by me). Does this affect any existing in-tree users? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs