On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 4:05 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 17:14:07 +0000 Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Thanks for the report. It seems like there is a race between
> > for_each_online_cpu() in __percpu_counter_sum() and
> > percpu_counter_cpu_dead()/cpu-offlining. Normally this race is fine for
> > percpu_counter users but for check_mm() is not happy with this race. Can
> > you please try the following patch:
>
> percpu-counters supposedly avoid such races via the hotplup notifier.
> So can you please fully describe the race and let's see if it can be
> fixed at the percpu_counter level?
>
Yes, I am writing a more detailed commit message explaining the race
and why it is not really an issue for current users.
> >
> > From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 06:05:13 +0000
> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: percpu_counter: use race free percpu_counter sum
> > interface
> >
> > percpu_counter_sum can race with cpu offlining. Add a new interface
> > which does not race with it and use that for check_mm().
>
> I'll grab this version for now, as others might be seeing this issue.
>
Thanks.
>
> > ---
> > include/linux/percpu_counter.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
> > lib/percpu_counter.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
> > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
> > index bde6c4c1f405..3070c1043acf 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
> > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ void percpu_counter_set(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount);
> > void percpu_counter_add_batch(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount,
> > s32 batch);
> > s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc);
> > +s64 __percpu_counter_sum_all(struct percpu_counter *fbc);
> > int __percpu_counter_compare(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 rhs, s32 batch);
> > void percpu_counter_sync(struct percpu_counter *fbc);
> >
> > @@ -85,6 +86,11 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> > return __percpu_counter_sum(fbc);
> > }
> >
> > +static inline s64 percpu_counter_sum_all(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> > +{
> > + return __percpu_counter_sum_all(fbc);
> > +}
>
> We haven't been good about documenting these interfaces. Can we please
> start now? ;)
>
Yup will do.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Add up all the per-cpu counts, return the result. This is a more accurate
> > + * but much slower version of percpu_counter_read_positive()
> > + */
> > +s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> > +{
> > + return __percpu_counter_sum_mask(fbc, cpu_online_mask);
> > +}
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_sum);
> >
> > +s64 __percpu_counter_sum_all(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> > +{
> > + return __percpu_counter_sum_mask(fbc, cpu_possible_mask);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_sum_all);
>
> Probably here is a good place to document it.
>
> Is there any point in having the
> percpu_counter_sum_all()->__percpu_counter_sum_all() inlined wrapper?
> Why not name this percpu_counter_sum_all() directly?
>
Ack.
thanks,
Shakeel
