On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 09:18:07PM +0000, Chris Down wrote:
> > @@ -6856,8 +6857,12 @@ int mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - if (!memcg)
> > - memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(mm);
> > + if (!memcg) {
> > + if (!mm)
> > + memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_current();
> > + else
> > + memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(mm);
> > + }
>
> Just to do due diligence, did we double check whether this results in any
> unintentional shift in accounting for those passing in both mm and memcg as
> NULL with no current->active_memcg set, since previously we never even tried
> to consult current->mm and always used root_mem_cgroup in
> get_mem_cgroup_from_mm?
Excellent question on a subtle issue.
But nobody actually passes NULL. They either pass current->mm (or a
destination mm) in syscalls, or vma->vm_mm in page faults.
The only times we end up with NULL is when kernel threads do something
and have !current->mm. We redirect those to root_mem_cgroup.
So this patch doesn't change those semantics.
