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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28331C3DA61 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9A0606B0088; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 950976B0089; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 83F956B008A; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DB76B0088 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB141A0C1E for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:12:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82376047110.23.125DCF8 Received: from out-180.mta1.migadu.com (out-180.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.180]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D439100025 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=Y3TFtiyh; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeel.butt@linux.dev designates 95.215.58.180 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeel.butt@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1721859150; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=2ZyW0buDXzvb59iAMbU2bFvjOmyyCJHIAXcW1zZC4yo=; b=FRdUpr8hcPRqZq76arccU91lgfv3WXvSsvQ0pPCV04+CkQHlLRCz/YaRN0HDypZz9b3J1M yEM4EEBYBumNXDDzQODIsnvKsRFNH0X1q2MBnpfjqpwdzXzwC5mIy004r+Mqw1E73Sur1e CjHK/QnPUDCQOVT0OGlTeYhRO4yKTnc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=Y3TFtiyh; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeel.butt@linux.dev designates 95.215.58.180 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeel.butt@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1721859150; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=HvvnczgSKpHH7mbzRf7UhyWCHVGAp4ca6ysLowXOmL1yp4JsSlSC5HCCZ+6Z1Oy57fSGO+ r7I+VZ3BfUmWDGPk5Y4AzMlO8me1oaOel0qB0LPPUJnBwXMzBn2msBCoziBaFf9lcl3pOt 7YYCDYXDcX9FUGpgF/mS7ewCvX4sRIo= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:12:43 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1721859170; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=2ZyW0buDXzvb59iAMbU2bFvjOmyyCJHIAXcW1zZC4yo=; b=Y3TFtiyhDd2ZRfscCVpQ5cz3eLtdGo/ZhotLsVCv/ga2Wx9R5Q2S2fHjetDR+SUeqrrWAJ RNNnAs5VzNM+1MTgQKp7spp9qbYr6vj2DQpM5Bl+pdLwR4AC8JeHNQs+fRFL7UM0ipcft/ QyyA9FZadVOAkX+rPsXlVGZ9kvfBKps= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Shakeel Butt To: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" Cc: Muchun Song , hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, muchun.song@linux.dev, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: kmem: add lockdep assertion to obj_cgroup_memcg Message-ID: References: <20240724095307.81264-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com> <610dc6fa-6681-4c9e-bffb-ef6d299dd169@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <610dc6fa-6681-4c9e-bffb-ef6d299dd169@kernel.org> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5D439100025 X-Stat-Signature: a5texhpqya8ob41hfuojd6796j371r5y X-HE-Tag: 1721859173-812887 X-HE-Meta: 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 0GD/hAP3 Tcx/wtUjsC1z8oZwe0yuwtp9ljVVmcVa5oCQ0cEtKDsw/+g3nLTiruHpHBxcnDVHu5jJSi9Uz2QJf9Vads7tWKB1SuZxnZe1vnaTOfniH9QUeJfxXBmnLSJ2e97dWFkx7LgaldhKHj//0FPUbt1gz/sEhzwyGnX/q0lB5bzPKCN+nc5vT3wIYwmC3u3FPfOI+tO8YVDX4mJUrrk+UPWUeZC6AqLhQCNV7UREe6Br0Dlc7mAPdDJUOQm9WFyGPTmJj6QZjirIYrQZcukh/X90O94SD29xHTb7gAD5C 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: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 05:20:09PM GMT, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: > On 7/24/24 11:53 AM, Muchun Song wrote: > > The obj_cgroup_memcg() is supposed to safe to prevent the returned > > memory cgroup from being freed only when the caller is holding the > > rcu read lock or objcg_lock or cgroup_mutex. It is very easy to > > ignore thoes conditions when users call some upper APIs which call > > obj_cgroup_memcg() internally like mem_cgroup_from_slab_obj() (See > > the link below). So it is better to add lockdep assertion to > > obj_cgroup_memcg() to find those issues ASAP. > > > > Because there is no user of obj_cgroup_memcg() holding objcg_lock > > to make the returned memory cgroup safe, do not add objcg_lock > > assertion (We should export objcg_lock if we really want to do). > > Additionally, this is some internal implementation detail of memcg > > and should not be accessible outside memcg code. > > > > Some users like __mem_cgroup_uncharge() do not care the lifetime > > of the returned memory cgroup, which just want to know if the > > folio is charged to a memory cgroup, therefore, they do not need > > to hold the needed locks. In which case, introduce a new helper > > folio_memcg_charged() to do this. Compare it to folio_memcg(), it > > could eliminate a memory access of objcg->memcg for kmem, actually, > > a really small gain. > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240718083607.42068-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com/ > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song > > --- > > v2: > > - Remove mention of objcg_lock in obj_cgroup_memcg()(Shakeel Butt). > > > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 20 +++++++++++++++++--- > > mm/memcontrol.c | 6 +++--- > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > index fc94879db4dff..742351945f683 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > @@ -360,11 +360,11 @@ static inline bool folio_memcg_kmem(struct folio *folio); > > * After the initialization objcg->memcg is always pointing at > > * a valid memcg, but can be atomically swapped to the parent memcg. > > * > > - * The caller must ensure that the returned memcg won't be released: > > - * e.g. acquire the rcu_read_lock or css_set_lock. > > + * The caller must ensure that the returned memcg won't be released. > > */ > > static inline struct mem_cgroup *obj_cgroup_memcg(struct obj_cgroup *objcg) > > { > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !lockdep_is_held(&cgroup_mutex)); > > Maybe lockdep_assert_once() would be a better fit? > So something like: lockdep_assert_once(rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held(&cgroup_mutex));