On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:40 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 6:36 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > 2. Are we really calling rstat flush in irq context? > > > > > > > > I think it is possible through the charge/uncharge path: > > > > memcg_check_events()->mem_cgroup_threshold()->mem_cgroup_usage(). I > > > > added the protection against flushing in an interrupt context for > > > > future callers as well, as it may cause a deadlock if we don't disable > > > > interrupts when acquiring cgroup_rstat_lock. > > > > > > > > > 3. The mem_cgroup_flush_stats() call in mem_cgroup_usage() is only > > > > > done for root memcg. Why is mem_cgroup_threshold() interested in root > > > > > memcg usage? Why not ignore root memcg in mem_cgroup_threshold() ? > > > > > > > > I am not sure, but the code looks like event notifications may be set > > > > up on root memcg, which is why we need to check thresholds. > > > > > > This is something we should deprecate as root memcg's usage is ill defined. > > > > Right, but I think this would be orthogonal to this patch series. > > > > I don't think we can make cgroup_rstat_lock a non-irq-disabling lock > without either breaking a link between mem_cgroup_threshold and > cgroup_rstat_lock or make mem_cgroup_threshold work without disabling > irqs. > > So, this patch can not be applied before either of those two tasks are > done (and we may find more such scenarios). Could you elaborate why? My understanding is that with an in_task() check to make sure we only acquire cgroup_rstat_lock from non-irq context it should be fine to acquire cgroup_rstat_lock without disabling interrupts.
