Re: [PATCH] mm: change memcg->oom_group access with atomic operations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> On Feb 20, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 01:09:44PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:16:38PM +0800, Yue Zhao wrote:
>>> The knob for cgroup v2 memory controller:
>>> will be read and written simultaneously by user space
>>> programs, thus we'd better change memcg->oom_group access
>>> with atomic operations to avoid concurrency problems.
>>> Signed-off-by: Yue Zhao <findns94@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Hi Yue!
>> I'm curious, have any seen any real issues which your patch is solving?
>> Can you, please, provide a bit more details.
> IMHO such details are not needed. oom_group is being accessed
> concurrently and one of them can be a write access. At least
> READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE is needed here.

Needed for what?

I mean it’s obviously not a big deal to put READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() here, but I struggle to imagine a scenario when it will make any difference. IMHO it’s easier to justify a proper atomic operation here, even if it’s most likely an overkill.

My question is very simple: the commit log mentions “… to avoid concurrency problems”, so I wonder what problems are these.

Also there are other similar cgroup interfaces without READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE().


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux