linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: create hugetlb cgroup file in hugetlb

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: <50C942BE.20902@huawei.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:51:42 +0800
From:	Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@...wei.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>, <tj@...nel.org>,
	<lizefan@...wei.com>, <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Liujiang <jiang.liu@...wei.com>, <dhillf@...il.com>,
	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: create hugetlb cgroup file in hugetlb_init

On 2012/12/12 19:23, Michal Hocko wrote:

> On Wed 12-12-12 18:44:13, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> On 2012/12/12 18:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed 12-12-12 16:25:59, Jianguo Wu wrote:
>>>> Build kernel with CONFIG_HUGETLBFS=y,CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE=y
>>>> and CONFIG_CGROUP_HUGETLB=y, then specify hugepagesz=xx boot option,
>>>> system will boot fail.
>>>>
>>>> This failure is caused by following code path:
>>>> setup_hugepagesz
>>>> 	hugetlb_add_hstate
>>>> 		hugetlb_cgroup_file_init
>>>> 			cgroup_add_cftypes
>>>> 				kzalloc <--slab is *not available* yet
>>>>
>>>> For this path, slab is not available yet, so memory allocated will be
>>>> failed, and cause WARN_ON() in hugetlb_cgroup_file_init().
>>>>
>>>> So I move hugetlb_cgroup_file_init() into hugetlb_init().
>>>
>>> I do not think this is a good idea. hugetlb_init is in __init section as
>>> well so what guarantees that the slab is initialized by then? Isn't this
>>> just a good ordering that makes this working?
>>
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> __initcall functions will be called in
>> start_kernel()
>> 	rest_init()  // -> slab is already
>> 		kernel_init()
>> 			kernel_init_freeable()
>> 				do_basic_setup()
>> 					do_initcalls()
>>
>> and setup_hugepagesz() will be called in
>> start_kernel()
>> 	parse_early_param()  // -> before mm_init() -> kmem_cache_init()
>>
>> Is this right?
> 
> Yes this is right. I just noticed that kmem_cache_init_late is an __init
> function as well and didn't realize it is called directly. Sorry about
> the confusion.
> Anyway I still think it would be a better idea to move the call into the
> hugetlb_cgroup_create callback where it is more logical IMO but now that

Hi Michal,

Thanks for your review and comments:).
hugetlb_cgroup_create is a callback of hugetlb_subsys,
and hugetlb_cgroup_file_init add h->cgroup_files to hugetlb_subsys,
so we cann't move hugetlb_cgroup_file_init into hugetlb_cgroup_create, right?

Thanks,
Jianguo wu

> I'm looking at other controllers (blk and kmem.tcp) they all do this from
> init calls as well. So it doesn't make sense to have hugetlb behave
> differently.
> 
> So
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> 
> Thanks!



--
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/