linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/14] mm,migration: Allow the migration of PageSwapCache pages

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:	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:42:34 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] mm,migration: Allow the migration of
 PageSwapCache  pages

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:44:29 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:43:18 +0900
> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:26 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki       /*
> >> >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >> >> index af35b75..d5ea1f2 100644
> >> >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >> >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >> >> @@ -1394,9 +1394,11 @@ int rmap_walk(struct page *page, int (*rmap_one)(struct page *,
> >> >>
> >> >>       if (unlikely(PageKsm(page)))
> >> >>               return rmap_walk_ksm(page, rmap_one, arg);
> >> >> -     else if (PageAnon(page))
> >> >> +     else if (PageAnon(page)) {
> >> >> +             if (PageSwapCache(page))
> >> >> +                     return SWAP_AGAIN;
> >> >>               return rmap_walk_anon(page, rmap_one, arg);
> >> >
> >> > SwapCache has a condition as (PageSwapCache(page) && page_mapped(page) == true.
> >> >
> >>
> >> In case of tmpfs, page has swapcache but not mapped.
> >>
> >> > Please see do_swap_page(), PageSwapCache bit is cleared only when
> >> >
> >> > do_swap_page()...
> >> >       swap_free(entry);
> >> >        if (vm_swap_full() || (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) || PageMlocked(page))
> >> >                try_to_free_swap(page);
> >> >
> >> > Then, PageSwapCache is cleared only when swap is freeable even if mapped.
> >> >
> >> > rmap_walk_anon() should be called and the check is not necessary.
> >>
> >> Frankly speaking, I don't understand what is Mel's problem, why he added
> >> Swapcache check in rmap_walk, and why do you said we don't need it.
> >>
> >> Could you explain more detail if you don't mind?
> >>
> > I may miss something.
> >
> > unmap_and_move()
> >  1. try_to_unmap(TTU_MIGRATION)
> >  2. move_to_newpage
> >  3. remove_migration_ptes
> >        -> rmap_walk()
> >
> > Then, to map a page back we unmapped we call rmap_walk().
> >
> > Assume a SwapCache which is mapped, then, PageAnon(page) == true.
> >
> >  At 1. try_to_unmap() will rewrite pte with swp_entry of SwapCache.
> >       mapcount goes to 0.
> >  At 2. SwapCache is copied to a new page.
> >  At 3. The new page is mapped back to the place. Now, newpage's mapcount is 0.
> >       Before patch, the new page is mapped back to all ptes.
> >       After patch, the new page is not mapped back because its mapcount is 0.
> >
> > I don't think shared SwapCache of anon is not an usual behavior, so, the logic
> > before patch is more attractive.
> >
> > If SwapCache is not mapped before "1", we skip "1" and rmap_walk will do nothing
> > because page->mapping is NULL.
> >
> 
> Thanks. I agree. We don't need the check.
> Then, my question is why Mel added the check in rmap_walk.
> He mentioned some BUG trigger and fixed things after this patch.
> What's it?
> Is it really related to this logic?
> I don't think so or we are missing something.
> 
Hmm. Consiering again.

Now.
	if (PageAnon(page)) {
		rcu_locked = 1;
		rcu_read_lock();
		if (!page_mapped(page)) {
			if (!PageSwapCache(page))
				goto rcu_unlock;
		} else {
			anon_vma = page_anon_vma(page);
			atomic_inc(&anon_vma->external_refcount);
		}


Maybe this is a fix.

==
	skip_remap = 0;
	if (PageAnon(page)) {
		rcu_read_lock();
		if (!page_mapped(page)) {
			if (!PageSwapCache(page))
				goto rcu_unlock;
			/*
			 * We can't convice this anon_vma is valid or not because
			 * !page_mapped(page). Then, we do migration(radix-tree replacement)
			 * but don't remap it which touches anon_vma in page->mapping.
			 */
			skip_remap = 1;
			goto skip_unmap;
		} else {
			anon_vma = page_anon_vma(page);
			atomic_inc(&anon_vma->external_refcount);
		}
	}	
	.....copy page, radix-tree replacement,....

	if (!rc && !skip_remap)
		 remove_migration_ptes(page, page);
==

Thanks,
-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/