linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/10] mm/memcg: move lru

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:	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:35:25 +0400
From:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] mm/memcg: move lru_lock into lruvec

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>
>> On lumpy/compaction isolate you do:
>>
>> if (!PageLRU(page))
>> 	continue
>>
>> __isolate_lru_page()
>>
>> page_relock_rcu_vec()
>> 	rcu_read_lock()
>> 	rcu_dereference()...
>> 	spin_lock()...
>> 	rcu_read_unlock()
>>
>> You protect page_relock_rcu_vec with switching pointers back to root.
>>
>> I do:
>>
>> catch_page_lru()
>> 	rcu_read_lock()
>> 	if (!PageLRU(page))
>> 		return false
>> 	rcu_dereference()...
>> 	spin_lock()...
>> 	rcu_read_unlock()
>> 	if (PageLRU())
>> 		return true
>> if true
>> 	__isolate_lru_page()
>>
>> I protect my catch_page_lruvec() with PageLRU() under single rcu-interval
>> with locking.
>> Thus my code is better, because it not requires switching pointers back to
>> root memcg.
>
> That sounds much better, yes - if it does work reliably.
>
> I'll have to come back to think about your locking later too;
> or maybe that's exactly where I need to look, when investigating
> the mm_inline.h:41 BUG.

pages_count[] updates looks correct.
This really may be bug in locking, and this VM_BUG_ON catch it before list-debug.

>
> But at first sight, I have to say I'm very suspicious: I've never found
> PageLRU a good enough test for whether we need such a lock, because of
> races with those pages on percpu lruvec about to be put on the lru.
>
> But maybe once I look closer, I'll find that's handled by your changes
> away from lruvec; though I'd have thought the same issue exists,
> independent of whether the pending pages are in vector or list.

Are you talking about my per-cpu page-lists for lru-adding?
This is just an unnecessary patch, I don't know why I include it into v2 set.
It does not protect anything.

>
> Hugh
>
>>
>> Meanwhile after seeing your patches, I realized that this rcu-protection is
>> required only for lock-by-pfn in lumpy/compaction isolation.
>> Thus my locking should be simplified and optimized.

--
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/