linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] memcg: lazy lru freeing

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:	Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:39:49 +0900
From:	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] memcg: lazy lru freeing

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:00:05 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Free page_cgroup from its LRU in batched manner.
> 
> When uncharge() is called, page is pushed onto per-cpu vector and
> removed from LRU, later.. This routine resembles to global LRU's pagevec.
> This patch is half of the whole patch and a set with following lazy LRU add
> patch.
> 
> After this, a pc, which is PageCgroupLRU(pc)==true, is on LRU.
> This LRU bit is guarded by lru_lock().
> 
>  PageCgroupUsed(pc) && PageCgroupLRU(pc) means "pc" is used and on LRU.
>  This check makes sense only when both 2 locks, lock_page_cgroup()/lru_lock(),
>  are aquired.
> 
>  PageCgroupUsed(pc) && !PageCgroupLRU(pc) means "pc" is used but not on LRU.
>  !PageCgroupUsed(pc) && PageCgroupLRU(pc) means "pc" is unused but still on
>  LRU. lru walk routine should avoid touching this.
> 
> Changelog (v5) => (v6):
>  - Fixing race and added PCG_LRU bit
> 
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> 

(snip)

> +static void
> +__release_page_cgroup(struct memcg_percpu_vec *mpv)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz, *prev_mz;
> +	struct page_cgroup *pc;
> +	int i, nr;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	nr = mpv->nr;
> +	mpv->nr = 0;
> +	prev_mz = NULL;
> +	for (i = nr - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +		pc = mpv->vec[i];
> +		mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc);
> +		if (prev_mz != mz) {
> +			if (prev_mz)
> +				spin_unlock(&prev_mz->lru_lock);
> +			prev_mz = mz;
> +			spin_lock(&mz->lru_lock);
> +		}
> +		/*
> +		 * this "pc" may be charge()->uncharge() while we are waiting
> +		 * for this. But charge() path check LRU bit and remove this
> +		 * from LRU if necessary.
> +		 */
> +		if (!PageCgroupUsed(pc) && PageCgroupLRU(pc)) {
> +			ClearPageCgroupLRU(pc);
> +			__mem_cgroup_remove_list(mz, pc);
> +			css_put(&pc->mem_cgroup->css);
> +		}
> +	}
> +	if (prev_mz)
> +		spin_unlock(&prev_mz->lru_lock);
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +}
> +
I'm wondering if page_cgroup_zoneinfo is safe without lock_page_cgroup
because it dereferences pc->mem_cgroup.
I'm worring if the pc has been moved to another lru by re-charge(and re-uncharge),
and __mem_cgroup_remove_list toches a wrong(old) group.

Hmm, there are many things to be done for re-charge and re-uncharge,
so "if (!PageCgroupUsed(pc) && PageCgroupLRU(pc))" would be enough.
(it can avoid race between re-charge.)

Another user of page_cgroup_zoneinfo without lock_page_cgroup is
__mem_cgroup_move_lists called by mem_cgroup_isolate_pages,
but mem_cgroup_isolate_pages handles pc which is actually on the mz->lru
so it would be ok.
(I think adding VM_BUG_ON(mz != page_cgroup_zoneifno(pc)) would make sense,
or add new arg *mz to __mem_cgroup_move_lists?)


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
--
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/