| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:32:49 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
Ozgun Erdogan <ozgun@...usdata.com>,
Metin Doslu <metin@...usdata.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 6/9] mm + fs: store shadow entries in page cache
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:08:04PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:17:16AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 06:38:25PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Reclaim will be leaving shadow entries in the page cache radix tree
> > > upon evicting the real page. As those pages are found from the LRU,
> > > an iput() can lead to the inode being freed concurrently. At this
> > > point, reclaim must no longer install shadow pages because the inode
> > > freeing code needs to ensure the page tree is really empty.
> > >
> > > Add an address_space flag, AS_EXITING, that the inode freeing code
> > > sets under the tree lock before doing the final truncate. Reclaim
> > > will check for this flag before installing shadow pages.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > ....
> > > @@ -545,10 +546,25 @@ static void evict(struct inode *inode)
> > > */
> > > inode_wait_for_writeback(inode);
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Page reclaim can not do iput() and thus can race with the
> > > + * inode teardown. Tell it when the address space is exiting,
> > > + * so that it does not install eviction information after the
> > > + * final truncate has begun.
> > > + *
> > > + * As truncation uses a lockless tree lookup, acquire the
> > > + * spinlock to make sure any ongoing tree modification that
> > > + * does not see AS_EXITING is completed before starting the
> > > + * final truncate.
> > > + */
> > > + spin_lock_irq(&inode->i_data.tree_lock);
> > > + mapping_set_exiting(&inode->i_data);
> > > + spin_unlock_irq(&inode->i_data.tree_lock);
> > > +
> > > if (op->evict_inode) {
> > > op->evict_inode(inode);
> > > } else {
> > > - if (inode->i_data.nrpages)
> > > + if (inode->i_data.nrpages || inode->i_data.nrshadows)
> > > truncate_inode_pages(&inode->i_data, 0);
> > > clear_inode(inode);
> > > }
> >
> > Ok, so what I see here is that we need a wrapper function that
> > handles setting the AS_EXITING flag and doing the "final"
> > truncate_inode_pages() call, and the locking for the AS_EXITING flag
> > moved into mapping_set_exiting()
> >
> > That is, because this AS_EXITING flag and it's locking constraints
> > are directly related to the upcoming truncate_inode_pages() call,
> > I'd prefer to see a helper that captures that relationship used
> > in all the filesystem code. e.g:
> >
> > void truncate_inode_pages_final(struct address_space *mapping)
> > {
> > spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > mapping_set_exiting(mapping);
> > spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > if (inode->i_data.nrpages || inode->i_data.nrshadows)
> > truncate_inode_pages_range(mapping, 0, (loff_t)-1);
> > }
> >
> > And document it in Documentation/filesystems/porting as a mandatory
> > function to be called from ->evict_inode() implementations before
> > calling clear_inode(). You can then replace all the direct calls to
> > truncate_inode_pages() in the evict_inode() path with a call to
> > truncate_inode_pages_final().
>
> Ok, fair enough. I'll add a BUG_ON(!mapping_exiting(&inode->i_data))
> to the inode sanity checks on final teardown to make sure filesystems
> don't miss the change to truncate_inode_pages_final().
Good idea. :)
> > As it is, I'd really like to see that unconditional irq disable go
> > away from this code - disabling and enabling interrupts for every
> > single inode we reclaim is going to add significant overhead to this
> > hot code path. And given that:
> >
> > > +static inline void mapping_set_exiting(struct address_space *mapping)
> > > +{
> > > + set_bit(AS_EXITING, &mapping->flags);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int mapping_exiting(struct address_space *mapping)
> > > +{
> > > + return test_bit(AS_EXITING, &mapping->flags);
> > > +}
> >
> > these atomic bit ops, why do we need to take the tree_lock and
> > disable irqs in evict() to set this bit if there's nothing to
> > truncate on the inode? i.e. something like this:
> >
> > void truncate_inode_pages_final(struct address_space *mapping)
> > {
> > mapping_set_exiting(mapping);
> > if (inode->i_data.nrpages || inode->i_data.nrshadows) {
> > /*
> > * spinlock barrier to ensure all modifications are
> > * complete before we do the final truncate
> > */
> > spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > truncate_inode_pages_range(mapping, 0, (loff_t)-1);
> > }
>
> That would almost work, but we need to enforce ordering of the counter
> reads and updates or truncation might read 0 on both while racing with
> reclaim.
>
> Reclaim would have to do:
>
> spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock)
> if !mapping_exiting():
> swap shadow entry
> mapping->nrshadows++
> smp_wmb()
> mapping->nrpages--
> spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock)
>
> and the final truncate side would have to do
>
> mapping_set_exiting()
> nrpages = mapping->nrpages
> smp_rmb()
> nrshadows = mapping->nrshadows
> if (nrpages || nrshadows)
> spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock)
> spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock)
> truncate
I don't see a problem with doing that as long as the memory barriers
are properly documented. One ofthe advantages of pulling this code
together is that we can use more complex synchronisation techniques
it in this way without messing up code all over the place. ;)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists