Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] mm: kmem: add direct objcg pointer to task_struct

[Johannes Weiner]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:00:52AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> @@ -553,6 +553,16 @@ static inline bool folio_memcg_kmem(struct folio *folio)
>  	return folio->memcg_data & MEMCG_DATA_KMEM;
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool current_objcg_needs_update(struct obj_cgroup *objcg)
> +{
> +	return (struct obj_cgroup *)((unsigned long)objcg & 0x1);
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct obj_cgroup *
> +current_objcg_without_update_flag(struct obj_cgroup *objcg)
> +{
> +	return (struct obj_cgroup *)((unsigned long)objcg & ~0x1);
> +}

I would slightly prefer naming the bit with a define, and open-coding
the bitops in the current callsites. This makes it clearer that the
actual pointer bits are overloaded in the places where the pointer is
accessed.

> @@ -3001,6 +3001,47 @@ static struct obj_cgroup *__get_obj_cgroup_from_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  	return objcg;
>  }
>  
> +static struct obj_cgroup *current_objcg_update(struct obj_cgroup *old)
> +{
> +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> +	struct obj_cgroup *objcg = NULL, *tmp = old;
> +
> +	old = current_objcg_without_update_flag(old);
> +	if (old)
> +		obj_cgroup_put(old);
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	do {
> +		/* Atomically drop the update bit, */
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(cmpxchg(&current->objcg, tmp, 0) != tmp);
> +
> +		/* ...obtain the new objcg pointer */
> +		memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current);
> +		for (; memcg != root_mem_cgroup; memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)) {
> +			objcg = rcu_dereference(memcg->objcg);
> +			if (objcg && obj_cgroup_tryget(objcg))
> +				break;
> +			objcg = NULL;
> +		}

As per the other thread, it would be great to have a comment here
explaining the scenario(s) when the tryget could fail and we'd have to
defer to an ancestor.

> +
> +		/*
> +		 * ...and try atomically set up a new objcg pointer. If it
> +		 * fails, it means the update flag was set concurrently, so
> +		 * the whole procedure should be repeated.
> +		 */
> +		tmp = 0;
> +	} while (!try_cmpxchg(&current->objcg, &tmp, objcg));
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	return objcg;

Overall this looks great to me.

AFAICS the rcu_read_lock() is needed for the mem_cgroup_from_task()
and tryget(). Is it possible to localize it around these operations?
Or am I missing some other effect it has?

> @@ -6358,8 +6407,27 @@ static void mem_cgroup_move_task(void)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> +static void mem_cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Set the update flag to cause task->objcg to be initialized lazily
> +	 * on the first allocation.
> +	 */
> +	task->objcg = (struct obj_cgroup *)0x1;
> +}

I like this open-coding!

Should this mention why it doesn't need to be atomic? Task is in
fork(), no concurrent modifications from allocations or migrations
possible...

None of the feedback is a blocker, though.

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>