From: Glauber Costa <glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Cc: <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
<linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
<devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>,
<netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:52:13 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB4CA4D.50608@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120516223715.5d1b4385.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
On 05/17/2012 09:37 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > If that happens, locking in static_key_slow_inc will prevent any damage.
>> > My previous version had explicit code to prevent that, but we were
>> > pointed out that this is already part of the static_key expectations, so
>> > that was dropped.
> This makes no sense. If two threads run that code concurrently,
> key->enabled gets incremented twice. Nobody anywhere has a record that
> this happened so it cannot be undone. key->enabled is now in an
> unknown state.
Kame, Tejun,
Andrew is right. It seems we will need that mutex after all. Just this
is not a race, and neither something that should belong in the
static_branch interface.
We want to make sure that enabled is not updated before the jump label
update, because we need a specific ordering guarantee at the patched
sites. And *that*, the interface guarantees, and we were wrong to
believe it did not. That is a correction issue for the accounting, and
that part is right.
But when we disarm it, we'll need to make sure that happened only once,
otherwise we may never unpatch it. That, or we'd need that to be a
counter. The jump label interface does not - and should not - keep track
of how many updates happened to a key. That's the role of whoever is
using it.
If you agree with the above, I'll send this patch again with the correction.
Andrew, thank you very much. Do you spot anything else here?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@openvz.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:52:13 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB4CA4D.50608@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120516223715.5d1b4385.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On 05/17/2012 09:37 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > If that happens, locking in static_key_slow_inc will prevent any damage.
>> > My previous version had explicit code to prevent that, but we were
>> > pointed out that this is already part of the static_key expectations, so
>> > that was dropped.
> This makes no sense. If two threads run that code concurrently,
> key->enabled gets incremented twice. Nobody anywhere has a record that
> this happened so it cannot be undone. key->enabled is now in an
> unknown state.
Kame, Tejun,
Andrew is right. It seems we will need that mutex after all. Just this
is not a race, and neither something that should belong in the
static_branch interface.
We want to make sure that enabled is not updated before the jump label
update, because we need a specific ordering guarantee at the patched
sites. And *that*, the interface guarantees, and we were wrong to
believe it did not. That is a correction issue for the accounting, and
that part is right.
But when we disarm it, we'll need to make sure that happened only once,
otherwise we may never unpatch it. That, or we'd need that to be a
counter. The jump label interface does not - and should not - keep track
of how many updates happened to a key. That's the role of whoever is
using it.
If you agree with the above, I'll send this patch again with the correction.
Andrew, thank you very much. Do you spot anything else here?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Glauber Costa <glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:52:13 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB4CA4D.50608@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120516223715.5d1b4385.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
On 05/17/2012 09:37 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > If that happens, locking in static_key_slow_inc will prevent any damage.
>> > My previous version had explicit code to prevent that, but we were
>> > pointed out that this is already part of the static_key expectations, so
>> > that was dropped.
> This makes no sense. If two threads run that code concurrently,
> key->enabled gets incremented twice. Nobody anywhere has a record that
> this happened so it cannot be undone. key->enabled is now in an
> unknown state.
Kame, Tejun,
Andrew is right. It seems we will need that mutex after all. Just this
is not a race, and neither something that should belong in the
static_branch interface.
We want to make sure that enabled is not updated before the jump label
update, because we need a specific ordering guarantee at the patched
sites. And *that*, the interface guarantees, and we were wrong to
believe it did not. That is a correction issue for the accounting, and
that part is right.
But when we disarm it, we'll need to make sure that happened only once,
otherwise we may never unpatch it. That, or we'd need that to be a
counter. The jump label interface does not - and should not - keep track
of how many updates happened to a key. That's the role of whoever is
using it.
If you agree with the above, I'll send this patch again with the correction.
Andrew, thank you very much. Do you spot anything else here?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-17 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-11 20:11 [PATCH v5 0/2] fix static_key disabling problem in memcg Glauber Costa
2012-05-11 20:11 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-11 20:11 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] Always free struct memcg through schedule_work() Glauber Costa
2012-05-11 20:11 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-11 20:11 ` Glauber Costa
[not found] ` <1336767077-25351-2-git-send-email-glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-14 0:56 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-14 0:56 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-11 20:11 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time Glauber Costa
2012-05-11 20:11 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-11 20:11 ` Glauber Costa
[not found] ` <1336767077-25351-3-git-send-email-glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-14 0:59 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-14 0:59 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
[not found] ` <4FB058D8.6060707-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-16 6:03 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 6:03 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 6:03 ` Glauber Costa
[not found] ` <4FB3431C.3050402-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-16 7:04 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 7:04 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 7:04 ` Glauber Costa
[not found] ` <4FB3518B.3090205-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-16 8:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-16 8:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
[not found] ` <4FB3652D.2040909-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-16 8:30 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 8:30 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 8:30 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 8:37 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 8:37 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 8:37 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-14 1:38 ` Li Zefan
2012-05-14 1:38 ` Li Zefan
[not found] ` <4FB0621C.3010604-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-16 7:03 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 7:03 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 7:03 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 20:57 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-16 20:57 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-14 18:12 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-14 18:12 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-16 21:06 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-16 21:06 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-16 21:06 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-17 3:06 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 3:06 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 3:06 ` Glauber Costa
[not found] ` <4FB46B4C.3000307-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-17 5:37 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-17 5:37 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-17 5:37 ` Andrew Morton
[not found] ` <20120516223715.5d1b4385.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-17 9:52 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2012-05-17 9:52 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 9:52 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 10:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
[not found] ` <4FB4D061.10406-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-17 10:22 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 10:22 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 10:22 ` Glauber Costa
[not found] ` <4FB4D14D.4020303-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-17 10:27 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-17 10:27 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-17 15:19 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-17 17:02 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-17 17:02 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-16 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-16 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
[not found] ` <20120516141342.911931e7.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
2012-05-17 0:07 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-17 0:07 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-17 3:09 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 3:09 ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 3:09 ` Glauber Costa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FB4CA4D.50608@parallels.com \
--to=glommer-bzqdu9zft3wakbo8gow8eq@public.gmane.org \
--cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.