linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: Activate !PageLRU pages on mark_page

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]
Message-Id: <20130515155500.ffe53764d9018c80572544cc@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 15 May 2013 15:55:00 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Alexey Lyahkov <alexey.lyashkov@...il.com>,
	Andrew Perepechko <anserper@...ru>,
	Robin Dong <sanbai@...bao.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: Activate !PageLRU pages on mark_page_accessed
 if page is on local pagevec

On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:21:21 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:

> If a page is on a pagevec then it is !PageLRU and mark_page_accessed()
> may fail to move a page to the active list as expected. Now that the LRU
> is selected at LRU drain time, mark pages PageActive if they are on the
> local pagevec so it gets moved to the correct list at LRU drain time.
> Using a debugging patch it was found that for a simple git checkout based
> workload that pages were never added to the active file list in practice
> but with this patch applied they are.
> 
> 				before   after
> LRU Add Active File                  0      750583
> LRU Add Active Anon            2640587     2702818
> LRU Add Inactive File          8833662     8068353
> LRU Add Inactive Anon              207         200
> 
> Note that only pages on the local pagevec are considered on purpose. A
> !PageLRU page could be in the process of being released, reclaimed, migrated
> or on a remote pagevec that is currently being drained. Marking it PageActive
> is vunerable to races where PageLRU and Active bits are checked at the
> wrong time. Page reclaim will trigger VM_BUG_ONs but depending on when the
> race hits, it could also free a PageActive page to the page allocator and
> trigger a bad_page warning. Similarly a potential race exists between a
> per-cpu drain on a pagevec list and an activation on a remote CPU.
> 
> 				lru_add_drain_cpu
> 				__pagevec_lru_add
> 				  lru = page_lru(page);
> mark_page_accessed
>   if (PageLRU(page))
>     activate_page
>   else
>     SetPageActive
> 				  SetPageLRU(page);
> 				  add_page_to_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
> 
> In this case a PageActive page is added to the inactivate list and later the
> inactive/active stats will get skewed. While the PageActive checks in vmscan
> could be removed and potentially dealt with, a skew in the statistics would
> be very difficult to detect. Hence this patch deals just with the common case
> where a page being marked accessed has just been added to the local pagevec.

but but but

> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -431,6 +431,27 @@ void activate_page(struct page *page)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +static void __lru_cache_activate_page(struct page *page)
> +{
> +	struct pagevec *pvec = &get_cpu_var(lru_add_pvec);
> +	int i;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Search backwards on the optimistic assumption that the page being
> +	 * activated has just been added to this pagevec
> +	 */
> +	for (i = pagevec_count(pvec) - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +		struct page *pagevec_page = pvec->pages[i];
> +
> +		if (pagevec_page == page) {
> +			SetPageActive(page);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	put_cpu_var(lru_add_pvec);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Mark a page as having seen activity.
>   *
> @@ -441,8 +462,17 @@ void activate_page(struct page *page)
>  void mark_page_accessed(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	if (!PageActive(page) && !PageUnevictable(page) &&
> -			PageReferenced(page) && PageLRU(page)) {
> -		activate_page(page);
> +			PageReferenced(page)) {
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * If the page is on the LRU, promote immediately. Otherwise,
> +		 * assume the page is on a pagevec, mark it active and it'll
> +		 * be moved to the active LRU on the next drain
> +		 */
> +		if (PageLRU(page))
> +			activate_page(page);
> +		else
> +			__lru_cache_activate_page(page);
>  		ClearPageReferenced(page);
>  	} else if (!PageReferenced(page)) {
>  		SetPageReferenced(page);

For starters, activate_page() doesn't "promote immediately".  It sticks
the page into yet another pagevec for deferred activation.

Also, I really worry about the fact that
activate_page()->drain->__activate_page() will simply skip over the
page if it has PageActive set!  So PageActive does something useful if
the page is in the add-to-lru pagevec but nothing useful if the page is
in the activate-it-soon pagevec.  This is a confusing, unobvious bug
attractant.

Secondly, I really don't see how this code avoids the races.  Suppose
the page gets spilled from the to-add-to-lru pagevec and onto the real
LRU while mark_page_accessed() is concurrently executing.  We end up
setting PageActive on a page which is on the inactive LRU?  Maybe this
is a can't-happen, in which case it's nowhere near clear enough *why*
this can't happen.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html