linux-kernel - Re: [patch] rt: res

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:29:32 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...x.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Carsten Emde <ce@...g.ch>, Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] rt: res_counter fix, v2

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:56:40 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:28:33 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> [2009-02-12 12:28:54]:
> > 
> > > 
> > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:21:13 +0100
> > > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > > The question is, are these local IRQ flags manipulations really needed
> > > in this code, and if yes, why?
> > 
> > We needed the local IRQ flags, since these counters are updated from
> > page fault context and from reclaim context with lru_lock held with
> > IRQ's disabled. I've been thinking about replacing the spin lock with
> > seq lock, but have not gotten to it yet.
> > 
> Hmm ?  I can't understand. Why we have to disable IRQ here again ?
> And,
>   - try_to_unmap() is called in shrink_page_list(),  there, no zone->lru_lock.
>   - page fault path doesn't hold zone->lru_lock.
> 
> My concern is only shmem. But I think it doesn't call charge() within lock, actually

Clarification :)
  res_counter_charge() is called from
    - page fault 
        => under down_read(mmap_sem), lock_page() may be held.  IRQ=ENABLED)
    - add_to_page_cache
        => under lock_page(), mapping->tree_lock is *not* held, IRQ=DISABLED
    - shmem
        => info->lock is held, we use __GFP_NOWAIT here. IRQ=ENABLED
    - shmem
        => info->lock is *not* held with GFP_KERNEL here, IRQ=ENABLED.
    - migration
        => under lock_page() and mmap_sem, IRQ=ENABLED

  res_counter_uncharge() is called from
    - page_remove_rmap()//(Only when ANON)
         => anon_vma->lock and pte_lock(),lock_page() can be held. IRQ=ENABLED?
    - remove_from_page_cache()
         => lock_page() and mapping->tree_lock is held, IRQ=DISABLED.

Summary:
   "Charge" is considered as heavy operation and the call path is placed where the
    thread can sleep, AMAP.
   "Uncharge" is considered as light operation and call path is under some # of
    spinlocks.


Bye,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/