| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:55:19 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
CC: Aaditya Kumar <aaditya.kumar.30@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Accounting problem of MIGRATE_ISOLATED freed page
On 06/21/2012 11:45 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On 06/21/2012 10:39 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>
>>>>> number of isolate page block is almost always 0. then if we have such counter,
>>>>> we almost always can avoid zone->lock. Just idea.
>>>>
>>>> Yeb. I thought about it but unfortunately we can't have a counter for MIGRATE_ISOLATE.
>>>> Because we have to tweak in page free path for pages which are going to free later after we
>>>> mark pageblock type to MIGRATE_ISOLATE.
>>>
>>> I mean,
>>>
>>> if (nr_isolate_pageblock != 0)
>>> free_pages -= nr_isolated_free_pages(); // your counting logic
>>>
>>> return __zone_watermark_ok(z, alloc_order, mark,
>>> classzone_idx, alloc_flags, free_pages);
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think this logic affect your race. zone_watermark_ok() is already
>>> racy. then new little race is no big matter.
>>
>>
>> It seems my explanation wasn't enough. :(
>> I already understand your intention but we can't make nr_isolate_pageblock.
>> Because we should count two type of free pages.
>
> I mean, move_freepages_block increment number of page *block*, not pages.
> number of free *pages* are counted by zone_watermark_ok_safe().
>
>
>> 1. Already freed page so they are already in buddy list.
>> Of course, we can count it with return value of move_freepages_block(zone, page, MIGRATE_ISOLATE) easily.
>>
>> 2. Will be FREEed page by do_migrate_range.
>> It's a _PROBLEM_. For it, we should tweak free path. No?
>
> No.
>
>
>> If All of pages are PageLRU when hot-plug happens(ie, 2), nr_isolate_pagblock is zero and
>> zone_watermk_ok_safe can't do his role.
>
> number of isolate pageblock don't depend on number of free pages. It's
> a concept of
> an attribute of PFN range.
It seems you mean is_migrate_isolate as a just flag, NOT nr_isolate_pageblock.
So do you mean this?
diff --git a/include/linux/page-isolation.h b/include/linux/page-isolation.h
index 3bdcab3..7f4d19c 100644
--- a/include/linux/page-isolation.h
+++ b/include/linux/page-isolation.h
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#ifndef __LINUX_PAGEISOLATION_H
#define __LINUX_PAGEISOLATION_H
+extern bool is_migrate_isolate;
/*
* Changes migrate type in [start_pfn, end_pfn) to be MIGRATE_ISOLATE.
* If specified range includes migrate types other than MOVABLE or CMA,
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index d2a515d..b997cb3 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1756,6 +1756,27 @@ bool zone_watermark_ok_safe(struct zone *z, int order, unsigned long ma
if (z->percpu_drift_mark && free_pages < z->percpu_drift_mark)
free_pages = zone_page_state_snapshot(z, NR_FREE_PAGES);
+#if defined CONFIG_CMA || CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
+ if (unlikely(is_migrate_isolate)) {
+ unsigned long flags;
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&z->lock, flags);
+ for (order = MAX_ORDER - 1; order >= 0; order--) {
+ struct free_area *area = &z->free_area[order];
+ long count = 0;
+ struct list_head *curr;
+
+ list_for_each(curr, &area->free_list[MIGRATE_ISOLATE])
+ count++;
+
+ free_pages -= (count << order);
+ if (free_pages < 0) {
+ free_pages = 0;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&z->lock, flags);
+ }
+#endif
return __zone_watermark_ok(z, order, mark, classzone_idx, alloc_flags,
free_pages);
}
diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
index c9f0477..212e526 100644
--- a/mm/page_isolation.c
+++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ __first_valid_page(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages)
return pfn_to_page(pfn + i);
}
+bool is_migrate_isolate = false;
+
/*
* start_isolate_page_range() -- make page-allocation-type of range of pages
* to be MIGRATE_ISOLATE.
@@ -43,6 +45,8 @@ int start_isolate_page_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn,
BUG_ON((start_pfn) & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1));
BUG_ON((end_pfn) & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1));
+ is_migrate_isolate = true;
+
for (pfn = start_pfn;
pfn < end_pfn;
pfn += pageblock_nr_pages) {
@@ -59,6 +63,7 @@ undo:
pfn += pageblock_nr_pages)
unset_migratetype_isolate(pfn_to_page(pfn), migratetype);
+ is_migrate_isolate = false;
return -EBUSY;
}
@@ -80,6 +85,9 @@ int undo_isolate_page_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn,
continue;
unset_migratetype_isolate(page, migratetype);
}
+
+ is_migrate_isolate = false;
+
return 0;
}
/*
It is still racy as you already mentioned and I don't think it's trivial.
Direct reclaim can't wake up kswapd forever by current fragile zone->all_unreclaimable.
So it's a livelock.
Then, do you want to fix this problem by your patch[1]?
It could solve the livelock by OOM kill if we apply your patch[1] but still doesn't wake up
kswapd although it's not critical. Okay. Then, please write down this problem in detail
in your patch's changelog and resend, please.
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/14/74
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists