Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm, memcg: fix memory.peak reset clobbering other fds' watermark
Ridong Chen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.cgroups,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/10/2026 10:58 AM, Ridong Chen wrote: > > > On 8/8/2026 4:22 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 16:59:58 +0800 Ridong <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Two fixes for the per-fd memory.peak / memory.swap.peak handlers added in >>> c6f53ed8f213. Each open fd reads back max(its own value, the shared >>> local_watermark), and both bugs live in that scheme. >> >> Thanks. >> >> We're missing the preferred description of the worst-case >> userspace-visible effects of the bug. It appears they're quite minor >> so I'll assume this series is a post-7.2 thing. >> > > Agreed, post-7.2 is fine and neither is stable material. > > Worst case for both: a reader of memory.peak (or memory.swap.peak) > gets a value lower than the true peak, so a tool that sizes or bills a > cgroup by peak usage under-reports it. > > - Patch 1 (reader side, take peaks_lock in peak_show): a reader that > races an unrelated reset briefly gets the low value. Transient. > > - Patch 2 (writer side, peak_write reset): a reset on one fd stores > the current usage into the other watchers instead of the old > watermark, dragging every other fd's peak down. > > I'll spell this out in both changelogs in v2. > >> Sashiko might have found a similar race on the writer side: >> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected] > > Yes, that's the writer side that patch 2 fixes; > Hello everyone, I would appreciate a review of this series. Should any feedback come up, I will update both the patch and the cover letter accordingly. -- Best regards Ridong