On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 6:50 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > -int mem_cgroup_hugetlb_try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp,
> > - long nr_pages);
> > +int mem_cgroup_charge_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, gfp_t gfp);
>
> Please cleanup mem_cgroup_cancel_charge() and mem_cgroup_commit_charge()
> as well as there will be no users after this patch.
>
> > /*
> > * Processes that did not create the mapping will have no
> > @@ -3056,6 +3044,12 @@ struct folio *alloc_hugetlb_folio(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > /* Fall through */
> > }
> >
> > + ret = mem_cgroup_charge_hugetlb(folio, gfp);
>
> You can not call this with hugetlb_lock held.
>
> > {
> > - /*
> > - * If hugetlb memcg charging is not enabled, do not fail hugetlb allocation,
> > - * but do not attempt to commit charge later (or cancel on error) either.
> > - */
> > - if (mem_cgroup_disabled() || !memcg ||
> > - !cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) || !memcg_accounts_hugetlb())
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_current();
>
> Leaking the above reference in error paths.
>
Hello Shakeel,
Thank you for your feedback on this patch. I will implement the changes you
mentioned in both patches. As for the comment on the other patch about
replacing the accounting check in mem_cgroup_hugetlb_try_charge,
I think this makes more sense. I will move the code from this patch to
the first.
Thank you again, have a great day!
Joshua
