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]

Date:	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:03:01 +0800
From:	Nai Xia <nai.xia@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	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>,
	"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 Saturday 17 December 2011 07:20:54 Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?

buffer_migrate_page() is done under page lock & buffer head locks.

I had assumed that anyone who has locked the buffer_heads should 
also have a stable relationship between buffer_head <---> page,
otherwise, the buffer_head locking semantics should be broken itself ?

I am actually using the similar logic for some other stuff,
it will make me cry if it can really crash ext3....


Thanks,

Nai 

> 
> 
--
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/