linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: migrate: do not touch page->mem

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:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:39:08 -0800 (PST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
cc:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...com, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: migrate: do not touch page->mem_cgroup of live
 pages

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Johannes Weiner wrote:

> CCing Hugh and Greg, they have worked on the memcg migration code most
> recently. AFAIK the only reason newpage->mem_cgroup had to be set up
> that early in migration was because of the way dirty accounting used
> to work. But Hugh took memcg out of the equation there, so moving
> mem_cgroup_migrate() to the end should be safe, as long as the pages
> are still locked and off the LRU.

Yes, that should be safe now: Vladimir's patch looks okay to me,
fixing the immediate irq issue.

But it would be nicer, if mem_cgroup_migrate() were called solely
from migrate_page_copy() - deleting the other calls in mm/migrate.c,
including that from migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page() (which does
some rewinding on error after its migrate_page_copy(): but just as
you now let a successfully migrated old page be uncharged when it's
freed, so you can leave a failed new_page to be uncharged when it's
freed, no extra code needed).

And (even more off-topic), I'm slightly sad to see that the lrucare
arg which mem_cgroup_migrate() used to have (before I renamed it and
you renamed it back!) has gone, so mem_cgroup_migrate() now always
demands lrucare of commit_charge().  I'd hoped that with your
separation of new from old charge, mem_cgroup_migrate() would never
need lrucare; but that's not true for the fuse case, though true
for everyone else.  Maybe just not worth bothering about?  Or the
reintroduction of some unnecessary zone->lru_lock-ing in page
migration, which we ought to try to avoid?

Or am I wrong, and even fuse doesn't need it?  That early return
"if (newpage->mem_cgroup)": isn't mem_cgroup_migrate() a no-op for
fuse, or is there some corner case by which newpage can be on LRU
but its mem_cgroup unset?

Hugh