linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: couple rcu and memory reclaim

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, 24 Sep 2007 13:50:35 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: couple rcu and memory reclaim

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:52:15 +0530 Balbir Singh
<balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:12:19 +0530 Balbir Singh
> > <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> Just an idea I had, it seems like a good idea to wait for RCU callbacks
> >>> in reclaim so that we won't get all of memory stuck there.
> >>>
> >>> If this location is too aggressive we might stick it next to
> >>> disable_swap_token().
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Couple RCU and reclaim.
> >>>
> >>> There could be a lot of memory stuck in RCU callbacks. Wait for RCU to
> >>> finish before giving it another go.
> >>>
> >>> Placed in kswapd and not direct reclaim path because kswapd never holds
> >>> rcu_read_lock() at this point and can thus not deadlock. Direct reclaim
> >>> callers might hold rcu_read_lock() and would suffer from deadlocks if
> >>> sync_rcu() were to be called.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> >>> ---

---
 mm/vmscan.c |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6/mm/vmscan.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/vmscan.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1527,8 +1527,10 @@ loop_again:
 		 * OK, kswapd is getting into trouble.  Take a nap, then take
 		 * another pass across the zones.
 		 */
-		if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
+		if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) {
+			synchronize_rcu();
 			congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10);
+		}
 
 		/*
 		 * We do this so kswapd doesn't build up large priorities for

> > Only kswapd can do this, direct reclaim has deadlock potential.
> 
> Yes, but not in all cases, do you want to add any gfp_mask
> based smartness for direct reclaim?

gfp_mask doesn't carry the needed information. It depends on whether
the current context holds a rcu_read_lock().

so something like:

   rcu_read_lock()
   foo = kmalloc(sizeof(foo))
      new_slab()
        __alloc_pages()
          try_to_free_pages()
            synchronise_rcu() <-- deadlock
   rcu_read_unlock()
-
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/