linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Memory management livelock

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:	Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:27:50 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agk@...hat.com, mbroz@...hat.com,
	chris@...chsys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Memory management livelock

On Friday 03 October 2008 21:43, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:47:21 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> 
wrote:
> > > > I expect there's no solution which avoids blocking the writers at
> > > > some stage.
> > >
> > > See my other email. Something roughly like this would do the trick
> > > (hey, it actually boots and runs and does fix the problem too).
> >
> > It needs exclusion to protect all those temp tags.  Is do_fsync()'s
> > i_mutex sufficient?  It's qute unobvious (and unmaintainable?) that all
> > the callers of this stuff are running under that lock.
>
> That filemap_fdatawrite and filemap_fdatawait in fsync() aren't really
> called under i_mutex (see do_fsync).
>
> So the possible solutions are:
>
> 1. Add jiffies when the page was diried and wroteback to struct page
> + no impact on locking and concurrency
> - increases the structure by 8 bytes

This one is not practical.


> 2. Stop the writers when the starvation happens (what I did)
> + doesn't do any locking if the livelock doesn't happen
> - locks writers when the livelock happens (I think it's not really serious
> --- because very few people complained about the livelock, very few people
> will see performance degradation from blocking the writers).

Maybe it is because not much actually does sequential writes to a massive
file or block device while trying to fsync it as well? I don't know. You
could still have cases where fsync takes much longer than expected but it
is still not long enough for a user to report it as a "livelock" bug.


> 3. Add another bit to radix tree (what Nick did)
> + doesn't ever block writers
> - unconditionally takes the lock on fsync path and serializates concurrent
> syncs/fsyncs. Probably low overhead too ... or I don't know, is there any
> possible situation when more processes execute sync() in parallel and user
> would see degradations if those syncs were serialized?

--
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/