On 8/9/21 11:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 04-08-21 10:33:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 04-08-21 09:39:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> > On 8/4/21 1:21 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > > /*
>> > > * The only protection from memory hotplug vs. drain_stock races is
>> > > * that we always operate on local CPU stock here with IRQ disabled
>> > > */
>> > > - local_irq_save(flags);
>> > > + local_lock_irqsave(memcg_stock_lock, flags);
>> > > ...
>> > > if (use_task_obj_stock())
>> > > drain_obj_stock(&stock->task_obj);
>> > >
>> > > which is incomprehensible garbage.
>> > >
>> > > The comment above the existing local_irq_save() is garbage w/o any local
>> > > lock conversion already today (and even before the commit which
>> > > introduced stock::task_obj) simply because that comment does not explain
>> > > the why.
>> >
>> > Michal, this seems to be your comment from commit 72f0184c8a00 ("mm, memcg:
>> > remove hotplug locking from try_charge"). Was "memory hotplug" a mistake,
>> > because the rest of the commit is about cpu hotplug, and I don't really see a
>> > memory hotplug connection there?
>>
>> This part of the changelog tried to explain that part IIRC
>> "
>> We can get rid of {get,put}_online_cpus, fortunately. We do not have to
>> be worried about races with memory hotplug because drain_local_stock,
>> which is called from both the WQ draining and the memory hotplug
>> contexts, is always operating on the local cpu stock with IRQs disabled.
>> "
>>
>> Now I have to admit I do not remember all the details and from a quick
>> look the memory hotplug doesn't seem to be draining memcg pcp stock.
>> Maybe this has been removed since then. The only stock draining outside
>> of the memcg code seems to be memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead callback. That
>> would indicate that I really meant the cpu hotplug here indeed.
>
> Does this look better?
Yes, thanks.
> ---
>
> From 5aa1c8ce0d88b8c6d59ba95c7e36ca07dc2b2161 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 10:59:04 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] memcg: fix up drain_local_stock comment
>
> Thomas and Vlastimil have noticed that the comment in drain_local_stock
> doesn't quite make sense. It talks about a synchronization with the
> memory hotplug but there is no actual memory hotplug involvement here.
> I meant to talk about cpu hotplug here. Fix that up and hopefuly make
> the comment more helpful by referencing the cpu hotplug callback as
> well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index eb8e87c4833f..f7be7b01395e 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2205,8 +2205,9 @@ static void drain_local_stock(struct work_struct *dummy)
> unsigned long flags;
>
> /*
> - * The only protection from memory hotplug vs. drain_stock races is
> - * that we always operate on local CPU stock here with IRQ disabled
> + * The only protection from cpu hotplug (memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead) vs.
> + * drain_stock races is that we always operate on local CPU stock
> + * here with IRQ disabled
> */
> local_irq_save(flags);
>
>
