From: Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
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 20:27:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aVQ1zvBE9csQYffT@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251223044156.208250-4-roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
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.
Perhaps we should consider introducing a new KF bit/value which
essentially allows such BPF kfuncs to also have their returned
pointers implicitly marked as "trusted", similar to that of the legacy
RET_PTR_TO_BTF_ID_TRUSTED. What do you think? That way it obviates the
requirement to call into any backing KF_RELEASE BPF kfunc after the
fact.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-30 20:28 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 [this message]
2025-12-30 21:00 ` Roman Gushchin
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=aVQ1zvBE9csQYffT@google.com \
--to=mattbobrowski@google.com \
--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=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--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