On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 04:31:10PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 07:32:35PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> >
> > In the near future, a folio will no longer pin its corresponding
> > memory cgroup. To ensure safety, it will only be appropriate to
> > hold the rcu read lock or acquire a reference to the memory cgroup
> > returned by folio_memcg(), thereby preventing it from being released.
> >
> > In the current patch, the rcu read lock is employed to safeguard
> > against the release of the memory cgroup in get_mem_cgroup_from_folio().
> >
> > This serves as a preparatory measure for the reparenting of the
> > LRU pages.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 982c9f5cf72cb..0458fc2e810ff 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -991,14 +991,18 @@ struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_current(void)
> > */
> > struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_folio(struct folio *folio)
> > {
> > - struct mem_cgroup *memcg = folio_memcg(folio);
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> >
> > if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > return NULL;
> >
> > + if (!folio_memcg_charged(folio))
> > + return root_mem_cgroup;
> > +
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > - if (!memcg || WARN_ON_ONCE(!css_tryget(&memcg->css)))
> > - memcg = root_mem_cgroup;
> > + do {
> > + memcg = folio_memcg(folio);
> > + } while (unlikely(!css_tryget(&memcg->css)));
>
> I went back to [1] where AI raised the following concern which I want to
> address:
>
> > If css_tryget() fails (e.g. refcount is 0), this loop spins indefinitely
> > with the RCU read lock held. Is it guaranteed that folio_memcg() will
> > return a different, alive memcg in subsequent iterations?
>
> Will css_tryget() ever fail for the memcg returned by folio_memcg()?
> Let's suppose memcg of a given folio is being offlined. The objcg
> reparenting happens in memcg_reparent_objcgs() which is called in
> offline_css() chain and we know that the offline context holds a
> reference on the css being offlined (see css_killed_work_fn()).
>
> Also let's suppose the offline process has the last reference on the
> memcg's css. Now we have following two scenarios:
>
> Scenario 1:
>
> get_mem_cgroup_from_folio() css_killed_work_fn()
> memcg = folio_memcg(folio) offline_css(css)
> memcg_reparent_objcgs()
> css_tryget(memcg)
> css_put(css)
>
> In the above case css_tryget() will not fail.
>
>
> Scenario 2:
>
> get_mem_cgroup_from_folio() css_killed_work_fn()
> memcg = folio_memcg(folio) offline_css(css)
> memcg_reparent_objcgs()
> css_put(css) // last reference
> css_tryget(memcg)
> // retry on failure
>
> In the above case the context in get_mem_cgroup_from_folio() will retry
> and will get different memcg during reparenting happening before the
> last css_put(css).
>
> So, I think we are good and AI is mistaken.
>
> Folks, please check if I missed something.
LGTM and I think we're good.
> > If the folio is isolated (e.g. via migrate_misplaced_folio()), it might be
> > missed by reparenting logic that iterates LRU lists.
>
> LRU isolation will not impact reparenting logic, so we can discount this
> as well.
>
> > In that case, the
> > folio would continue pointing to the dying memcg, leading to a hard lockup.
> >
> > Also, folio_memcg() calls __folio_memcg(), which reads folio->memcg_data
> > without READ_ONCE().
>
> Oh I think I know why AI is confused. It is because it is looking at
> folio->memcg i.e. state with this patch only and not the state after the
> series. In the current state the folio holds the reference on memcg, so
> css_tryget() will never fail.
Makes sense!
> > Since this loop waits for memcg_data to be updated
> > by another CPU (reparenting), could the compiler hoist the load out of
> > the loop, preventing the update from being seen?
> >
> > Finally, the previous code fell back to root_mem_cgroup on failure. Is it
> > safe to remove that fallback? If css_tryget() fails unexpectedly, hanging
> > seems more severe than the previous behavior of warning and falling back.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/7ia4ldikrbsj.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com/
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon