linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/2] memcg: mem_cgroup->prev_priority protected by lock. take2

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20081202164334.1D0C.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue,  2 Dec 2008 16:44:18 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: mem_cgroup->prev_priority protected by lock. take2


Currently, mem_cgroup doesn't have own lock and almost its member doesn't need.
 (e.g. mem_cgroup->info is protected by zone lock, mem_cgroup->stat is
  per cpu variable)

However, there is one explict exception. mem_cgroup->prev_priorit need lock,
but doesn't protect.
Luckly, this is NOT bug because prev_priority isn't used for current reclaim code.

However, we plan to use prev_priority future again.
Therefore, fixing is better.


In addision, we plan to reuse this lock for another member.
Then "reclaim_param_lock" name is better than "prev_priority_lock".



Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
---
 mm/memcontrol.c |   18 +++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: b/mm/memcontrol.c
===================================================================
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -142,6 +142,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
 	 */
 	struct mem_cgroup_lru_info info;
 
+	/*
+	  protect against reclaim related member.
+	*/
+	spinlock_t reclaim_param_lock;
+
 	int	prev_priority;	/* for recording reclaim priority */
 
 	/*
@@ -393,18 +398,28 @@ int mem_cgroup_calc_mapped_ratio(struct 
  */
 int mem_cgroup_get_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
 {
-	return mem->prev_priority;
+	int prev_priority;
+
+	spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
+	prev_priority = mem->prev_priority;
+	spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
+
+	return prev_priority;
 }
 
 void mem_cgroup_note_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int priority)
 {
+	spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
 	if (priority < mem->prev_priority)
 		mem->prev_priority = priority;
+	spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
 }
 
 void mem_cgroup_record_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int priority)
 {
+	spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
 	mem->prev_priority = priority;
+	spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -1967,6 +1982,7 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *
 	}
 
 	mem->last_scanned_child = NULL;
+	spin_lock_init(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
 
 	return &mem->css;
 free_out:


--
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/