linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] mm/page_alloc: insert memory barriers to allow async update of pcp batch and high

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: <CAOtvUMe8zZwZaUYDiGeLskkdPzPZGXYh6Wm0MKt0St0OSqDExg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:22:34 +0300
From:	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
To:	Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Simon Jeons <simon.jeons@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] mm/page_alloc: insert memory barriers to allow
 async update of pcp batch and high

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> In pageset_set_batch() and setup_pagelist_highmark(), ensure that batch
>> is always set to a safe value (1) prior to updating high, and ensure
>> that high is fully updated before setting the real value of batch.
>>
>> Suggested by Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com> in this thread:
>>
>>         https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/9/23
>>
>> Also reproduces his proposed comment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/page_alloc.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index d259599..a07bd4c 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -4007,11 +4007,26 @@ static int __meminit zone_batchsize(struct zone *zone)
>>  #endif
>>  }
>>
>> +static void pageset_update_prep(struct per_cpu_pages *pcp)
>> +{
>> +       /*
>> +        * We're about to mess with PCP in an non atomic fashion.  Put an
>> +        * intermediate safe value of batch and make sure it is visible before
>> +        * any other change
>> +        */
>> +       pcp->batch = 1;
>> +       smp_wmb();
>> +}
>> +
>>  /* a companion to setup_pagelist_highmark() */
>>  static void pageset_set_batch(struct per_cpu_pageset *p, unsigned long batch)
>>  {
>>         struct per_cpu_pages *pcp = &p->pcp;
>> +       pageset_update_prep(pcp);
>> +
>>         pcp->high = 6 * batch;
>> +       smp_wmb();
>> +
>>         pcp->batch = max(1UL, 1 * batch);
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -4039,7 +4054,11 @@ static void setup_pagelist_highmark(struct per_cpu_pageset *p,
>>         struct per_cpu_pages *pcp;
>>
>>         pcp = &p->pcp;
>> +       pageset_update_prep(pcp);
>> +
>>         pcp->high = high;
>> +       smp_wmb();
>> +
>>         pcp->batch = max(1UL, high/4);
>>         if ((high/4) > (PAGE_SHIFT * 8))
>>                 pcp->batch = PAGE_SHIFT * 8;
>> --
>> 1.8.2
>>
>
> That is very good.
> However, now we've created a "protocol" for updating ->high and ->batch:
>
> 1. Call pageset_update_prep(pcp)
> 2. Update ->high
> 3. smp_wmb()
> 4. Update ->batch
>
> But that protocol is not documented anywhere and someone  that reads
> the code two
> years from now will not be aware of it or why it is done like that.
>
> How about if we create:
>
> /*
> * pcp->high and pcp->batch values are related and dependent on one another:
> * ->batch must never be higher then ->high.
> * The following function updates them in a safe manner without a
> costly atomic transaction.
> */
> static void pageset_update(struct per_cpu_pages *pcp, unsigned int
> high, unsigned int batch)
> {
>        /* start with a fail safe value for batch */
>        pcp->batch = 1;
>        smp_wmb();
>
>        /* Update high, then batch, in order */
>        pcp->high = high;
>        smp_wmb();
>        pcp->batch = batch;
> }
>
> And use that at the update sites? then the protocol becomes explicit.

Oh, and other then that it looks good to me, so assuming you do that -

Reviewed-By: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>

Many thanks,
Gilad


-- 
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker
gilad@...yossef.com
Israel Cell: +972-52-8260388
US Cell: +1-973-8260388
http://benyossef.com

"If you take a class in large-scale robotics, can you end up in a
situation where the homework eats your dog?"
 -- Jean-Baptiste Queru
--
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/