linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/22] Do not sanity check order in the fast path

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, 24 Apr 2009 11:57:03 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/22] Do not sanity check order in the fast path

> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 10:58 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > How about this:  I'll go and audit the use of order in page_alloc.c to
> > > make sure that having an order>MAX_ORDER-1 floating around is OK and
> > > won't break anything. 
> > 
> > Great. Right now, I think it's ok but I haven't audited for this
> > explicily and a second set of eyes never hurts.
> 
> OK, after looking through this, I have a couple of ideas.  One is that
> we do the MAX_ORDER check in __alloc_pages_internal(), but *after* the
> first call to get_page_from_freelist().  That's because I'm worried if
> we ever got into the reclaim code with a >MAX_ORDER 'order'.  Such as:
> 
> void wakeup_kswapd(struct zone *zone, int order)
> {
> ...
>         if (pgdat->kswapd_max_order < order)
>                 pgdat->kswapd_max_order = order;
>         if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
>                 return;
>         if (!waitqueue_active(&pgdat->kswapd_wait))
>                 return;
>         wake_up_interruptible(&pgdat->kswapd_wait);
> }
> 
> unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order,
>                                 gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *nodemask)
> {
>         struct scan_control sc = {
> ...
>                 .order = order,
>                 .mem_cgroup = NULL,
>                 .isolate_pages = isolate_pages_global,
>                 .nodemask = nodemask,
>         };
> 
>         return do_try_to_free_pages(zonelist, &sc);
> }
> 
> This will keep us only checking 'order' once for each
> alloc_pages_internal() call.  It is an extra branch, but it is out of
> the really, really hot path since we're about to start reclaim here
> anyway.
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index e2f2699..1e3a01e 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1498,6 +1498,13 @@ restart:
>  			zonelist, high_zoneidx, ALLOC_WMARK_LOW|ALLOC_CPUSET);
>  	if (page)
>  		goto got_pg;
> +	/*
> +	 * We're out of the rocket-hot area above, so do a quick sanity
> +	 * check.  We do this here to avoid ever trying to do any reclaim
> +	 * of >=MAX_ORDER areas which can never succeed, of course.
> +	 */
> +	if (order >= MAX_ORDER)
> +		goto nopage;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * GFP_THISNODE (meaning __GFP_THISNODE, __GFP_NORETRY and

Good point.
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order >= MAX_ORDER)) is better?



--
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/