linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] writeback: fix dirtied pages accounting on sub-page writes

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: <20111122124811.GD8058@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:48:11 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] writeback: fix dirtied pages accounting on
 sub-page writes

On Tue 22-11-11 20:30:01, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > @@ -1743,6 +1738,8 @@ void account_page_dirtied(struct page *p
> > >  		__inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info, BDI_DIRTIED);
> > >  		task_dirty_inc(current);
> > >  		task_io_account_write(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
> > > +		current->nr_dirtied++;
> > > +		__get_cpu_var(bdp_ratelimits)++;
> >   I think you need preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() pair around
> > __get_cpu_var(). Otherwise a process could get rescheduled in the middle of
> > read-modify-write cycle...
> 
> Hmm, I'm not worried about it at all, because bdp_ratelimits don't
> need to be accurate. In normal cases it won't even trigger one single
> call to balance_dirty_pages().
  I agree regarding the accuracy. But the CPU can change when the process
is scheduled again. So you could modify counter of a CPU you are not
running on. And that can cause bad things...

> btw, account_page_dirtied() is called inside spinlock, will it be
> sufficient?
  Currently it is not enough in real-time kernels and when sleeping
spinlocks work gets merged it won't be enough even in standard kernels...
And in kernels where spinlock means preemption is disabled
preempt_enable/disable will be almost for free...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/