mm: memcg: fix test for child groups

When memcg code needs to know whether any given memcg has children, it
uses the cgroup child iteration primitives and returns true/false
depending on whether the iteration loop is executed at least once or
not.

Because a cgroup's list of children is RCU protected, these primitives
require the RCU read-lock to be held, which is not the case for all
memcg callers.  This results in the following splat when e.g.  enabling
hierarchy mode:

  WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 1 at kernel/cgroup.c:3043 css_next_child+0xa3/0x160()
  CPU: 3 PID: 1 Comm: systemd Not tainted 3.12.0-rc5-00117-g83f11a9-dirty #18
  Hardware name: LENOVO 3680B56/3680B56, BIOS 6QET69WW (1.39 ) 04/26/2012
  Call Trace:
    dump_stack+0x54/0x74
    warn_slowpath_common+0x78/0xa0
    warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
    css_next_child+0xa3/0x160
    mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write+0x5b/0xa0
    cgroup_file_write+0x108/0x2a0
    vfs_write+0xbd/0x1e0
    SyS_write+0x4c/0xa0
    system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

In the memcg case, we only care about children when we are attempting to
modify inheritable attributes interactively.  Racing with deletion could
mean a spurious -EBUSY, no problem.  Racing with addition is handled
just fine as well through the memcg_create_mutex: if the child group is
not on the list after the mutex is acquired, it won't be initialized
from the parent's attributes until after the unlock.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 24 deletions

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 7e11cb7d75b1..e63278222be5 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -4959,31 +4959,18 @@ static void mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
 	} while (usage > 0);
 }
 
-/*
- * This mainly exists for tests during the setting of set of use_hierarchy.
- * Since this is the very setting we are changing, the current hierarchy value
- * is meaningless
- */
-static inline bool __memcg_has_children(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
-{
-	struct cgroup_subsys_state *pos;
-
-	/* bounce at first found */
-	css_for_each_child(pos, &memcg->css)
-		return true;
-	return false;
-}
-
-/*
- * Must be called with memcg_create_mutex held, unless the cgroup is guaranteed
- * to be already dead (as in mem_cgroup_force_empty, for instance).  This is
- * from mem_cgroup_count_children(), in the sense that we don't really care how
- * many children we have; we only need to know if we have any.  It also counts
- * any memcg without hierarchy as infertile.
- */
 static inline bool memcg_has_children(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
 {
-	return memcg->use_hierarchy && __memcg_has_children(memcg);
+	lockdep_assert_held(&memcg_create_mutex);
+	/*
+	 * The lock does not prevent addition or deletion to the list
+	 * of children, but it prevents a new child from being
+	 * initialized based on this parent in css_online(), so it's
+	 * enough to decide whether hierarchically inherited
+	 * attributes can still be changed or not.
+	 */
+	return memcg->use_hierarchy &&
+		!list_empty(&memcg->css.cgroup->children);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -5063,7 +5050,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
 	 */
 	if ((!parent_memcg || !parent_memcg->use_hierarchy) &&
 				(val == 1 || val == 0)) {
-		if (!__memcg_has_children(memcg))
+		if (list_empty(&memcg->css.cgroup->children))
 			memcg->use_hierarchy = val;
 		else
 			retval = -EBUSY;