lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/7] memcg: remove memcg from the reclaim iterators
    On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 04:43:30PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
    > On Tue 12-02-13 10:10:02, Johannes Weiner wrote:
    > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:54:19AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
    > > > On Mon 11-02-13 17:39:43, Johannes Weiner wrote:
    > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:27:56PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
    > > > > > On Mon 11-02-13 14:58:24, Johannes Weiner wrote:
    > > > > > > That way, if the dead count gives the go-ahead, you KNOW that the
    > > > > > > position cache is valid, because it has been updated first.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > OK, you are right. We can live without css_tryget because dead_count is
    > > > > > either OK which means that css would be alive at least this rcu period
    > > > > > (and RCU walk would be safe as well) or it is incremented which means
    > > > > > that we have started css_offline already and then css is dead already.
    > > > > > So css_tryget can be dropped.
    > > > >
    > > > > Not quite :)
    > > > >
    > > > > The dead_count check is for completed destructions,
    > > >
    > > > Not quite :P. dead_count is incremented in css_offline callback which is
    > > > called before the cgroup core releases its last reference and unlinks
    > > > the group from the siblinks. css_tryget would already fail at this stage
    > > > because CSS_DEACT_BIAS is in place at that time but this doesn't break
    > > > RCU walk. So I think we are safe even without css_get.
    > >
    > > But you drop the RCU lock before you return.
    > >
    > > dead_count IS incremented for every destruction, but it's not reliable
    > > for concurrent ones, is what I meant. Again, if there is a dead_count
    > > mismatch, your pointer might be dangling, easy case. However, even if
    > > there is no mismatch, you could still race with a destruction that has
    > > marked the object dead, and then frees it once you drop the RCU lock,
    > > so you need try_get() to check if the object is dead, or you could
    > > return a pointer to freed or soon to be freed memory.
    >
    > Wait a moment. But what prevents from the following race?
    >
    > rcu_read_lock()
    > mem_cgroup_css_offline(memcg)
    > root->dead_count++
    > iter->last_dead_count = root->dead_count
    > iter->last_visited = memcg
    > // final
    > css_put(memcg);
    > // last_visited is still valid
    > rcu_read_unlock()
    > [...]
    > // next iteration
    > rcu_read_lock()
    > iter->last_dead_count == root->dead_count
    > // KABOOM
    >
    > The race window between dead_count++ and css_put is quite big but that
    > is not important because that css_put can happen anytime before we start
    > the next iteration and take rcu_read_lock.

    The usual approach is to make sure that there is a grace period (either
    synchronize_rcu() or call_rcu()) between the time that the data is
    made inaccessible to readers (this would be mem_cgroup_css_offline()?)
    and the time it is freed (css_put(), correct?).

    Thanx, Paul



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-02-12 19:41    [W:2.606 / U:0.176 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site