linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/11] mm: compaction: Determine if dirty pages can be migrated without blocking within ->migratepage

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: <20111216152054.f7445e98.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:20:54 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Andy Isaacson <adi@...apodia.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Nai Xia <nai.xia@...il.com>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] mm: compaction: Determine if dirty pages can be
 migrated without blocking within ->migratepage

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:41:27 +0000
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:

> Asynchronous compaction is used when allocating transparent hugepages
> to avoid blocking for long periods of time. Due to reports of
> stalling, there was a debate on disabling synchronous compaction
> but this severely impacted allocation success rates. Part of the
> reason was that many dirty pages are skipped in asynchronous compaction
> by the following check;
> 
> 	if (PageDirty(page) && !sync &&
> 		mapping->a_ops->migratepage != migrate_page)
> 			rc = -EBUSY;
> 
> This skips over all mapping aops using buffer_migrate_page()
> even though it is possible to migrate some of these pages without
> blocking. This patch updates the ->migratepage callback with a "sync"
> parameter. It is the responsibility of the callback to fail gracefully
> if migration would block.
> 
> ...
>
> @@ -259,6 +309,19 @@ static int migrate_page_move_mapping(struct address_space *mapping,
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> +	 * In the async migration case of moving a page with buffers, lock the
> +	 * buffers using trylock before the mapping is moved. If the mapping
> +	 * was moved, we later failed to lock the buffers and could not move
> +	 * the mapping back due to an elevated page count, we would have to
> +	 * block waiting on other references to be dropped.
> +	 */
> +	if (!sync && head && !buffer_migrate_lock_buffers(head, sync)) {

Once it has been established that "sync" is true, I find it clearer to
pass in plain old "true" to buffer_migrate_lock_buffers().  Minor point.



I hadn't paid a lot of attention to buffer_migrate_page() before. 
Scary function.  I'm rather worried about its interactions with ext3
journal commit which locks buffers then plays with them while leaving
the page unlocked.  How vigorously has this been whitebox-tested?

--
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/