Re: [PATCH 1/4] memcg: use mod_node_page_state to update stats

[Dev Jain]

On 11/02/26 2:23 pm, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 01:07:40PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> On 10/02/26 9:59 pm, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 01:08:49PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Oh so it is arm64 specific issue. I tested on x86-64 machine and it solves
>>>>> the little regression it had before. So, on arm64 all this_cpu_ops i.e. without
>>>>> double underscore, uses LL/SC instructions. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Need more thought on this. 
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also can you confirm whether my analysis of the regression was correct?
>>>>>>>  Because if it was, then this diff looks wrong - AFAIU preempt_disable()
>>>>>>>  won't stop an irq handler from interrupting the execution, so this
>>>>>>>  will introduce a bug for code paths running in irq context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was worried about the correctness too, but this_cpu_add() is safe
>>>>>> against IRQs and so the stat will be _eventually_ consistent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ofc it's so confusing! Maybe I'm the one confused.
>>>>> Yeah there is no issue with proposed patch as it is making the function
>>>>> re-entrant safe.
>>>> Ah yes, this_cpu_add() does the addition in one shot without read-modify-write.
>>>>
>>>> I am still puzzled whether the original patch was a bug fix or an optimization.
>>> The original patch was a cleanup patch. The memcg stats update functions
>>> were already irq/nmi safe without disabling irqs and that patch did the
>>> same for the numa stats. Though it seems like that is causing regression
>>> for arm64 as this_cpu* ops are expensive on arm64. 
>>>
>>>> The patch description says that node stat updation uses irq unsafe interface.
>>>> Therefore, we had foo() calling __foo() nested with local_irq_save/restore. But
>>>> there were code paths which directly called __foo() - so, your patch fixes a bug right
>>> No, those places were already disabling irqs and should be fine.
>> Please correct me if I am missing something here. Simply putting an
>> if (!irqs_disabled()) -> dump_stack() in __lruvec_stat_mod_folio, before
>> calling __mod_node_page_state, reveals:
>>
>> [ 6.486375] Call trace:
>> [ 6.486376] show_stack+0x20/0x38 (C)
>> [ 6.486379] dump_stack_lvl+0x74/0x90
>> [ 6.486382] dump_stack+0x18/0x28
>> [ 6.486383] __lruvec_stat_mod_folio+0x160/0x180
>> [ 6.486385] folio_add_file_rmap_ptes+0x128/0x480
>> [ 6.486388] set_pte_range+0xe8/0x320
>> [ 6.486389] finish_fault+0x260/0x508
>> [ 6.486390] do_fault+0x2d0/0x598
>> [ 6.486391] __handle_mm_fault+0x398/0xb60
>> [ 6.486393] handle_mm_fault+0x15c/0x298
>> [ 6.486394] __get_user_pages+0x204/0xb88
>> [ 6.486395] populate_vma_page_range+0xbc/0x1b8
>> [ 6.486396] __mm_populate+0xcc/0x1e0
>> [ 6.486397] __arm64_sys_mlockall+0x1d4/0x1f8
>> [ 6.486398] invoke_syscall+0x50/0x120
>> [ 6.486399] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x48/0xf0
>> [ 6.486400] do_el0_svc+0x24/0x38
>> [ 6.486400] el0_svc+0x34/0xf0
>> [ 6.486402] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xa0/0xe8
>> [ 6.486404] el0t_64_sync+0x198/0x1a0
>>
>> Indeed finish_fault() takes a PTL spin lock without irq disablement.
> That indeed looks incorrect to me.
> I was assuming __foo() is always called with IRQs disabled!
>
>>> I am working on adding batched stats update functionality in the hope
>>> that will fix the regression.
>> Thanks! FYI, I have zeroed in the issue on to preempt_disable(). Dropping this
>> from _pcpu_protect_return solves the regression.
> That's interesting, why is the cost of preempt disable/enable so high?
>
>> Unlike x86, arm64 does a preempt_disable
>> when doing this_cpu_*. On a cursory look it seems like this is unnecessary - since we
>> are doing preempt_enable() immediately after reading the pointer, CPU migration is
>> possible anyways, so there is nothing to be gained by reading pcpu pointer with
>> preemption disabled. I am investigating whether we can simply drop this in general.
> Let me quote an old email from Mark Rutland [1]:
>> We also thought that initially, but there's a sbutle race that can
>> occur, and so we added code to disable preemption in commit:
>>
>>   f3eab7184ddcd486 ("arm64: percpu: Make this_cpu accessors pre-empt safe")
>>
>> The problem on arm64 is that our atomics take a single base register,
>> and we have to generate the percpu address with separate instructions
>> from the atomic itself. That means we can get preempted between address
>> generation and the atomic, which is problematic for sequences like:
>>
>> 	// Thread-A			// Thread-B
>>
>> 	this_cpu_add(var)
>> 					local_irq_disable(flags)
>> 					...
>> 					v = __this_cpu_read(var);
>> 					v = some_function(v);
>> 					__this_cpu_write(var, v);
>> 					...
>> 					local_irq_restore(flags)
>>
>> ... which can unexpectedly race as:
>>
>>
>> 	// Thread-A			// Thread-B
>>
>> 	< generate CPU X addr >
>> 	< preempted >
>>
>> 					< scheduled on CPU X >
>> 					local_irq_disable(flags);
>> 					v = __this_cpu_read(var);
>>
>> 	< scheduled on CPU Y >
>> 	< add to CPU X's var >
>> 					v = some_function(v);
>> 					__this_cpu_write(var, v);
>> 					local_irq_restore(flags);
>>
>> ... and hence we lose an update to a percpu variable.
> ... so, removing preempt disable _in general_ is probably not a good idea.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190311164837.GD24275@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks for the link!