Re: [PATCH] memcg: Replace mm->owner with mm->memcg

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 05/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> +static void mem_cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
> >> +
> >> +	rcu_read_lock();
> >> +	css = task_css(tsk, memory_cgrp_id);
> >> +	if (css && css_tryget(css))
> >> +		task_update_memcg(tsk, mem_cgroup_from_css(css));
> >> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> >> +}
> >
> > Why do we need it?
> >
> > The child's mm->memcg was already initialized by mm_init_memcg() and we can't
> > race with migrate until cgroup_threadgroup_change_end() ?
>
> I admit I missed the cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin
> cgroup_threadgroup_change_end pair in fs fork.  In this case it doesn't
> matter because mm_init_memcg is called from:
>
>    copy_mm
>       dup_mm
>         mm_init
>
> And copy_mm is called before we call cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin.
> So the race remains.

Ah yes, you are right.

> We could move move cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin earlier, to remove
> the need for mem_cgroup_fork.  But I have not analyzed that.

No, cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin() was called early and this was wrong, see
568ac888215c7fb2fabe8ea739b00ec3c1f5d440. Actually there were more problems, say
copy_net() could deadlock because cleanup_net() does do_wait() with net_mutex held.


OK, what about exec() ? mm_init_memcg() initializes bprm->mm->memcg early in
bprm_mm_init(). What if the execing task migrates before exec_mmap() ?

Oleg.