linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] virtio_balloon: move locking to the balloon thread

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: <20121219104748.336fc33f@doriath.home>
Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:47:48 -0200
From:	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
To:	Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com,
	mst@...hat.com, amit.shah@...hat.com, agl@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] virtio_balloon: move locking to the balloon thread

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:55:58 -0200
Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 06:17:29PM -0200, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > Today, the balloon_lock mutex is taken and released by fill_balloon()
> > and leak_balloon() when both functions are entered and when they
> > return.
> > 
> > This commit moves the locking to the caller instead, which is
> > the balloon() thread. The balloon thread is the sole caller of those
> > functions today.
> > 
> > The reason for this move is that the next commit will introduce
> > a shrinker callback for the balloon driver, which will also call
> > leak_balloon() but will require different locking semantics.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c | 6 ++----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c
> > index 2a70558..877e695 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c
> > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon.c
> > @@ -133,7 +133,6 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb, size_t num)
> >  	/* We can only do one array worth at a time. */
> >  	num = min(num, ARRAY_SIZE(vb->pfns));
> >  
> > -	mutex_lock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> >  	for (vb->num_pfns = 0; vb->num_pfns < num;
> >  	     vb->num_pfns += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE) {
> >  		struct page *page = balloon_page_enqueue(vb_dev_info);
> > @@ -155,7 +154,6 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb, size_t num)
> >  	/* Did we get any? */
> >  	if (vb->num_pfns != 0)
> >  		tell_host(vb, vb->inflate_vq);
> > -	mutex_unlock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> >  }
> >
> 
> Since you're removing the locking scheme from within this function, I think it
> would be a good idea introduce a comment stating its caller must held the mutex
> vb->balloon_lock.

Will address all comments for v1 (or rfc v2), thanks Rafael.

> 
>   
> >  static void release_pages_by_pfn(const u32 pfns[], unsigned int num)
> > @@ -177,7 +175,6 @@ static void leak_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb, size_t num)
> >  	/* We can only do one array worth at a time. */
> >  	num = min(num, ARRAY_SIZE(vb->pfns));
> >  
> > -	mutex_lock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> >  	for (vb->num_pfns = 0; vb->num_pfns < num;
> >  	     vb->num_pfns += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE) {
> >  		page = balloon_page_dequeue(vb_dev_info);
> > @@ -193,7 +190,6 @@ static void leak_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb, size_t num)
> >  	 * is true, we *have* to do it in this order
> >  	 */
> >  	tell_host(vb, vb->deflate_vq);
> > -	mutex_unlock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> >  	release_pages_by_pfn(vb->pfns, vb->num_pfns);
> >  }
> >
> 
> ditto
> 
>   
> > @@ -306,11 +302,13 @@ static int balloon(void *_vballoon)
> >  					 || freezing(current));
> >  		if (vb->need_stats_update)
> >  			stats_handle_request(vb);
> > +		mutex_lock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> >  		if (diff > 0)
> >  			fill_balloon(vb, diff);
> >  		else if (diff < 0)
> >  			leak_balloon(vb, -diff);
> >  		update_balloon_size(vb);
> > +		mutex_unlock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> >  	}
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
> Just a nitpick:
> As leak_balloon() is also called at remove_common(), you'll need to introduce the
> mutex there, similarly.
> 
> 
> Thanks for move this forward.
> 
> Cheers!
> -- Rafael
> 

--
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/