linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: when handling percpu_pagelist_fraction, use on_each

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:	Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:50:33 -0700
From:	Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: when handling percpu_pagelist_fraction, use on_each_cpu()
 to set percpu pageset fields.

On 04/08/2013 10:28 AM, Cody P Schafer wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 05:20 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Cody P Schafer
>> <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> In free_hot_cold_page(), we rely on pcp->batch remaining stable.
>>> Updating it without being on the cpu owning the percpu pageset
>>> potentially destroys this stability.
>>>
>>> Change for_each_cpu() to on_each_cpu() to fix.
>>
>> Are you referring to this? -
>
> This was the case I noticed.
>
>>
>> 1329         if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
>> 1330                 free_pcppages_bulk(zone, pcp->batch, pcp);
>> 1331                 pcp->count -= pcp->batch;
>> 1332         }
>>
>> I'm probably missing the obvious but won't it be simpler to do this in
>>   free_hot_cold_page() -
>>
>> 1329         if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
>> 1330                  unsigned int batch = ACCESS_ONCE(pcp->batch);
>> 1331                 free_pcppages_bulk(zone, batch, pcp);
>> 1332                 pcp->count -= batch;
>> 1333         }
>>
>
> Potentially, yes. Note that this was simply the one case I noticed,
> rather than certainly the only case.
>
> I also wonder whether there could be unexpected interactions between
> ->high and ->batch not changing together atomically. For example, could
> adjusting this knob cause ->batch to rise enough that it is greater than
> the previous ->high? If the code above then runs with the previous
> ->high, ->count wouldn't be correct (checking this inside
> free_pcppages_bulk() might help on this one issue).
>
>> Now the batch value used is stable and you don't have to IPI every CPU
>> in the system just to change a config knob...
>
> Is this really considered an issue? I wouldn't have expected someone to
> adjust the config knob often enough (or even more than once) to cause
> problems. Of course as a "It'd be nice" thing, I completely agree.

Would using schedule_on_each_cpu() instead of on_each_cpu() be an 
improvement, in your opinion?

--
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/