linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] vmscan: Synchrounous lumpy reclaim use lock_page() instead trylock

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]

Message-Id: <20100909182649.C94F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:25:43 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] vmscan: Synchrounous lumpy reclaim use lock_page() instead trylock_page()

> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:13:22PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:04:48 +0900
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon,  6 Sep 2010 11:47:28 +0100
> > > > Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > With synchrounous lumpy reclaim, there is no reason to give up to reclaim
> > > > > pages even if page is locked. This patch uses lock_page() instead of
> > > > > trylock_page() in this case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > > > 
> > > Ah......but can't this change cause dead lock ??
> > 
> > Yes, this patch is purely crappy. please drop. I guess I was poisoned
> > by poisonous mushroom of Mario Bros.
> > 
> 
> Lets be clear on what the exact dead lock conditions are. The ones I had
> thought about when I felt this patch was ok were;
> 
> o We are not holding the LRU lock (or any lock, we just called cond_resched())
> o We do not have another page locked because we cannot lock multiple pages
> o Kswapd will never be in LUMPY_MODE_SYNC so it is not getting blocked
> o lock_page() itself is not allocating anything that we could recurse on

True, all.

> 
> One potential dead lock would be if the direct reclaimer held a page
> lock and ended up here but is that situation even allowed?

example, 

__do_fault()
{
(snip)
        if (unlikely(!(ret & VM_FAULT_LOCKED)))
                lock_page(vmf.page);
        else
                VM_BUG_ON(!PageLocked(vmf.page));

        /*
         * Should we do an early C-O-W break?
         */
        page = vmf.page;
        if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
                if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
                        anon = 1;
                        if (unlikely(anon_vma_prepare(vma))) {
                                ret = VM_FAULT_OOM;
                                goto out;
                        }
                        page = alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE,
                                                vma, address);


Afaik, detailed rule is,

o kswapd can call lock_page() because they never take page lock outside vmscan
o if try_lock() is successed, we can call lock_page_nosync() against its page after unlock.
  because the task have gurantee of no lock taken.
o otherwise, direct reclaimer can't call lock_page(). the task may have a lock already.

I think.


>  I did not
> think of an obvious example of when this would happen. Similarly,
> deadlock situations with mmap_sem shouldn't happen unless multiple page
> locks are being taken.
> 
> (prepares to feel foolish)
> 
> What did I miss?





--
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/