On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:31:23PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > for_each_online_cpu() needs the protection of {get,put}_online_cpus() so
> > cpu_online_mask doesn't change during the iteration.
>
> There is no problem report here.
>
> Is there a crash?
>
No.
> If it's just accuracy of the read, why would we care about some
> inaccuracies in counters that can change before you even get the
> results to userspace? And care to the point where we hold up CPU
> hotplugging for this?
>
cpu_hotplug.lock is held while a cpu is going down, it's a coarse lock
that is used kernel-wide to synchronize cpu hotplug activity. Memcg has
a cpu hotplug notifier, called while there may not be any cpu hotplug
refcounts, which drains per-cpu event counts to memcg->nocpu_base.events
to maintain a cumulative event count as cpus disappear. Without
get_online_cpus() in mem_cgroup_read_events(), it's possible to account
for the event count on a dying cpu twice, and this value may be
significantly large.
In fact, all memcg->pcp_counter_lock use should be nested by
{get,put}_online_cpus().
This fixes that issue and ensures the reported statistics are not vastly
over-reported during cpu hotplug.
> Also, the fact that you directly sent this to Linus suggests there is
> some urgency for this fix. What's going on?
>
I believe users of cpu hotplug still want event counts that are
approximate to the real value and that this is 3.12 material.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>