From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B78178F4B for ; Tue, 13 May 2025 07:15:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747120527; cv=none; b=otdSF0VvhQZReLVXf8f9isdrfug3KLJl8QFNBE3aK/iq5sc2rJRWHhexZ2I+ummqF3e12AR4peU5fJxmHwosxgEGoNwaHRflebp6f/WyMpD5e+u/a/NrK9I9AazWj5eU4UGFMeFS04iEFQYzDgVBOi+wUGdVDdtU3rlnfc1hh1M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747120527; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jVZ5/2j32r5gSro7eUI5O2QTGiEFQ0aQT1niktiUiGU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=R0zUygbXHrwf6lyW7QxAbpl/BMycUbx8Q4iGoVDSQDPh5Dyn81TadYPbnXiBClhueZH+pM1h8TjIBhWsYLExCO0XURj0MlYNHpRn5s/rjFiOV8oukBx6QZmtXQ+UAsD4AXR8Nr8l/e7m04SDvjO1XFvIFlfpdzs8vI8vZ3U0xqQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=2ROraWs7; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=p0MMbgRl; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=2ROraWs7; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b=p0MMbgRl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="2ROraWs7"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="p0MMbgRl"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="2ROraWs7"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.b="p0MMbgRl" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 447B01F443; Tue, 13 May 2025 07:15:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1747120524; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=be8oLaF1XY+ew3NrcaBsZrwtLFQ8Y+wmaaeGX1M5udQ=; b=2ROraWs7n7h8YDCl7bDSG0oIj+Cp+2cg0DPODFWCnbfdYwjSLEMsUAXWHkhExob9HSav53 7heEoJS9XabZoDlnx4ALiNtc2xJ1J7v0Yi1Mb3NjL1RFFpBt7CaKSlwZIFpS7qYiLoDYDJ w4JwIciqwPCSp6Mv8cI1ydsaPNDVxxg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1747120524; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=be8oLaF1XY+ew3NrcaBsZrwtLFQ8Y+wmaaeGX1M5udQ=; b=p0MMbgRlMPZl8K82MK4rdhKr93W8rKYimUD6vBwRNDQRO7CUrXOKiewqO0K5dWALz44m1Y DkIVOHi56A1xQ8Cg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=2ROraWs7; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=p0MMbgRl DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1747120524; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=be8oLaF1XY+ew3NrcaBsZrwtLFQ8Y+wmaaeGX1M5udQ=; b=2ROraWs7n7h8YDCl7bDSG0oIj+Cp+2cg0DPODFWCnbfdYwjSLEMsUAXWHkhExob9HSav53 7heEoJS9XabZoDlnx4ALiNtc2xJ1J7v0Yi1Mb3NjL1RFFpBt7CaKSlwZIFpS7qYiLoDYDJ w4JwIciqwPCSp6Mv8cI1ydsaPNDVxxg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1747120524; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=be8oLaF1XY+ew3NrcaBsZrwtLFQ8Y+wmaaeGX1M5udQ=; b=p0MMbgRlMPZl8K82MK4rdhKr93W8rKYimUD6vBwRNDQRO7CUrXOKiewqO0K5dWALz44m1Y DkIVOHi56A1xQ8Cg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F31981365D; Tue, 13 May 2025 07:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id S4mxLYvxImjwVgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 13 May 2025 07:15:23 +0000 Message-ID: <07e4e8d9-2588-41bf-89d4-328ca6afd263@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 09:15:23 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] memcg: nmi-safe kmem charging Content-Language: en-US To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , Alexei Starovoitov , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Meta kernel team , Mathieu Desnoyers , Peter Zijlstra References: <20250509232859.657525-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev> <2e2f0568-3687-4574-836d-c23d09614bce@suse.cz> From: Vlastimil Babka In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 447B01F443 X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.51 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWELVE(0.00)[16]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; SPAMHAUS_XBL(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:mid,suse.cz:dkim,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:rdns]; DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167:received,2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+] X-Spam-Score: -4.51 On 5/12/25 21:12, Shakeel Butt wrote: > I forgot to CC Tejun, so doing it now. > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 05:56:09PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 5/10/25 01:28, Shakeel Butt wrote: >> > BPF programs can trigger memcg charged kernel allocations in nmi >> > context. However memcg charging infra for kernel memory is not equipped >> > to handle nmi context. This series adds support for kernel memory >> > charging for nmi context. >> > >> > The initial prototype tried to make memcg charging infra for kernel >> > memory re-entrant against irq and nmi. However upon realizing that >> > this_cpu_* operations are not safe on all architectures (Tejun), this >> >> I assume it was an off-list discussion? >> Could we avoid this for the architectures where these are safe, which should >> be the major ones I hope? > > Yes it was an off-list discussion. The discussion was more about the > this_cpu_* ops vs atomic_* ops as on x86 this_cpu_* does not have lock > prefix and how I should prefer this_cpu_* over atomic_* for my series on > objcg charging without disabling irqs. Tejun pointed out this_cpu_* are > not nmi safe for some archs and it would be better to handle nmi context > separately. So, I am not that worried about optimizing for NMI context Well, we're introducing in_nmi() check and different execution paths to all charging. This could be e.g. compiled out for architectures where this_cpu* is NMI safe or they don't have NMIs in the first place. > but your next comment on generic_atomic64_* ops is giving me headache. > >> >> > series took a different approach targeting only nmi context. Since the >> > number of stats that are updated in kernel memory charging path are 3, >> > this series added special handling of those stats in nmi context rather >> > than making all >100 memcg stats nmi safe. >> >> Hmm so from patches 2 and 3 I see this relies on atomic64_add(). >> But AFAIU lib/atomic64.c has the generic fallback implementation for >> architectures that don't know better, and that would be using the "void >> generic_atomic64_##op" macro, which AFAICS is doing: >> >> local_irq_save(flags); \ >> arch_spin_lock(lock); \ >> v->counter c_op a; \ >> arch_spin_unlock(lock); \ >> local_irq_restore(flags); \ >> >> so in case of a nmi hitting after the spin_lock this can still deadlock? >> >> Hm or is there some assumption that we only use these paths when already >> in_nmi() and then another nmi can't come in that context? >> >> But even then, flush_nmi_stats() in patch 1 isn't done in_nmi() and uses >> atomic64_xchg() which in generic_atomic64_xchg() implementation also has the >> irq_save+spin_lock. So can't we deadlock there? > > I was actually assuming that atomic_* ops are safe against nmis for all > archs. I looked at atomic_* ops in include/asm-generic/atomic.h and it > is using arch_cmpxchg() for CONFIG_SMP and it seems like for archs with > cmpxchg should be fine against nmi. I am not sure why atomic64_* are not > using arch_cmpxchg() instead. I will dig more. Yeah I've found https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/local_ops.html and since it listed Mathieu we discussed on IRC and he mentioned the same thing that atomic_ ops are fine, but the later added 64bit variant isn't, which PeterZ (who added it) acknowledged. But there could be way out if we could somehow compile-time assert that either is true: - CONFIG_HAVE_NMI=n - we can compile out all the nmi code - this_cpu is safe on that arch - we can also compile out the nmi code - (if the above leaves any 64bit arch) its 64bit atomics implementation is safe - (if there are any 32bit applicable arch left) 32bit atomics should be enough for the nmi counters even with >4GB memory as we flush them? and we know the 32bit ops are safe > I also have the followup series on objcg charging without irq almost > ready. I will send it out as rfc soon. > > Thanks a lot for awesome and insightful comments. > Shakeel