| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20081215174028.8baf7739.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:40:28 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH mmotm] memcg fix swap accounting leak (v3)
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:07:26 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2008-12-15 16:07:51]:
>
> >
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> > Fix swapin charge operation of memcg.
> >
> > Now, memcg has hooks to swap-out operation and checks SwapCache is really
> > unused or not. That check depends on contents of struct page.
> > I.e. If PageAnon(page) && page_mapped(page), the page is recoginized as
> > still-in-use.
> >
> > Now, reuse_swap_page() calles delete_from_swap_cache() before establishment
> > of any rmap. Then, in followinig sequence
> >
> > (Page fault with WRITE)
> > try_charge() (charge += PAGESIZE)
> > commit_charge() (Check page_cgroup is used or not..)
> > reuse_swap_page()
> > -> delete_from_swapcache()
> > -> mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache() (charge -= PAGESIZE)
> > ......
> > New charge is uncharged soon....
> > To avoid this, move commit_charge() after page_mapcount() goes up to 1.
> > By this,
> >
> > try_charge() (usage += PAGESIZE)
> > reuse_swap_page() (may usage -= PAGESIZE if PCG_USED is set)
> > commit_charge() (If page_cgroup is not marked as PCG_USED,
> > add new charge.)
> > Accounting will be correct.
> >
> > Changelog (v2) -> (v3)
> > - fixed invalid charge to swp_entry==0.
> > - updated documentation.
> > Changelog (v1) -> (v2)
> > - fixed comment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 7 +++--
> > mm/memory.c | 11 ++++----
> > 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12/mm/memory.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12.orig/mm/memory.c
> > +++ mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -2428,22 +2428,23 @@ static int do_swap_page(struct mm_struct
> > * while the page is counted on swap but not yet in mapcount i.e.
> > * before page_add_anon_rmap() and swap_free(); try_to_free_swap()
> > * must be called after the swap_free(), or it will never succeed.
> > - * And mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(), which uses the swp_entry
> > - * in page->private, must be called before reuse_swap_page(),
> > - * which may delete_from_swap_cache().
> > + * Because delete_from_swap_page() may be called by reuse_swap_page(),
> > + * mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin() may not be able to find swp_entry
> > + * in page->private. In this case, a record in swap_cgroup is silently
> > + * discarded at swap_free().
> > */
> >
> > - mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(page, ptr);
> > inc_mm_counter(mm, anon_rss);
> > pte = mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot);
> > if (write_access && reuse_swap_page(page)) {
> > pte = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte), vma);
> > write_access = 0;
> > }
> > -
>
> Removal of unassociated lines, not sure if that is a good practice.
>
my mistake...
> > flush_icache_page(vma, page);
> > set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, pte);
> > page_add_anon_rmap(page, vma, address);
> > + /* It's better to call commit-charge after rmap is established */
> > + mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(page, ptr);
> >
>
> Yes, it does make sense
>
> > swap_free(entry);
> > if (vm_swap_full() || (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) || PageMlocked(page))
> > Index: mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12/Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt
> > ===================================================================
> > --- mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12.orig/Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt
> > +++ mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12/Documentation/controllers/memcg_test.txt
> > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> > Memory Resource Controller(Memcg) Implementation Memo.
> > -Last Updated: 2008/12/10
> > -Base Kernel Version: based on 2.6.28-rc7-mm.
> > +Last Updated: 2008/12/15
> > +Base Kernel Version: based on 2.6.28-rc8-mm.
> >
> > Because VM is getting complex (one of reasons is memcg...), memcg's behavior
> > is complex. This is a document for memcg's internal behavior.
> > @@ -111,9 +111,40 @@ Under below explanation, we assume CONFI
> > (b) If the SwapCache has been mapped by processes, it has been
> > charged already.
> >
> > - In case (a), we charge it. In case (b), we don't charge it.
> > - (But racy state between (a) and (b) exists. We do check it.)
> > - At charging, a charge recorded in swap_cgroup is moved to page_cgroup.
> > + This swap-in is one of the most complicated work. In do_swap_page(),
> > + following events occur when pte is unchanged.
> > +
> > + (1) the page (SwapCache) is looked up.
> > + (2) lock_page()
> > + (3) try_charge_swapin()
> > + (4) reuse_swap_page() (may call delete_swap_cache())
> > + (5) commit_charge_swapin()
> > + (6) swap_free().
> > +
> > + Considering following situation for example.
> > +
> > + (A) The page has not been charged before (2) and reuse_swap_page()
> > + doesn't call delete_from_swap_cache().
> > + (B) The page has not been charged before (2) and reuse_swap_page()
> > + calls delete_from_swap_cache().
> > + (C) The page has been charged before (2) and reuse_swap_page() doesn't
> > + call delete_from_swap_cache().
> > + (D) The page has been charged before (2) and reuse_swap_page() calls
> > + delete_from_swap_cache().
> > +
> > + memory.usage/memsw.usage changes to this page/swp_entry will be
> > + Case (A) (B) (C) (D)
> > + Event
> > + Before (2) 0/ 1 0/ 1 1/ 1 1/ 1
> > + ===========================================
> > + (3) +1/+1 +1/+1 +1/+1 +1/+1
> > + (4) - 0/ 0 - -1/ 0
> > + (5) 0/ 1 0/-1 -1/-1 0/ 0
> > + (6) - - - 0/-1
> > + ===========================================
> > + Result 1/ 1 1/1 1/ 1 1/ 1
> > +
> > + In any cases, charges to this page should be 1/ 1.
> >
>
> The documentation patch failed to apply for me
>
Hmm... I'll check my queue again.
Thanks,
-Kame
> > 4.2 Swap-out.
> > At swap-out, typical state transition is below.
> > Index: mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12/mm/memcontrol.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1139,10 +1139,11 @@ void mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(str
> > /*
> > * Now swap is on-memory. This means this page may be
> > * counted both as mem and swap....double count.
> > - * Fix it by uncharging from memsw. This SwapCache is stable
> > - * because we're still under lock_page().
> > + * Fix it by uncharging from memsw. Basically, this SwapCache is stable
> > + * under lock_page(). But in do_swap_page()::memory.c, reuse_swap_page()
> > + * may call delete_from_swap_cache() before reach here.
> > */
> > - if (do_swap_account) {
> > + if (do_swap_account && PageSwapCache(page)) {
> > swp_entry_t ent = {.val = page_private(page)};
> > struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > memcg = swap_cgroup_record(ent, NULL);
> >
> >
>
>
> Looks good to me
>
> Acked-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> --
> Balbir
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists