linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 4/8] memcg: add per cgroup dirty pages accounting

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:	Fri, 3 May 2013 11:11:49 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	gthelen@...gle.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com, glommer@...allels.com,
	dchinner@...hat.com, Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/8] memcg: add per cgroup dirty pages accounting

On Wed 02-01-13 11:44:21, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-12-12 01:26:07, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> > From: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@...bao.com>
> > 
> > This patch adds memcg routines to count dirty pages, which allows memory controller
> > to maintain an accurate view of the amount of its dirty memory and can provide some
> > info for users while cgroup's direct reclaim is working.
> 
> I guess you meant targeted resp. (hard/soft) limit reclaim here,
> right? It is true that this is direct reclaim but it is not clear to me
> why the usefulnes should be limitted to the reclaim for users. I would
> understand this if the users was in fact in-kernel users.
> 
> [...]
> > To prevent AB/BA deadlock mentioned by Greg Thelen in previous version
> > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/30/227), we adjust the lock order:
> > ->private_lock --> mapping->tree_lock --> memcg->move_lock.
> > So we need to make mapping->tree_lock ahead of TestSetPageDirty in __set_page_dirty()
> > and __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(). But in order to avoiding useless spinlock contention,
> > a prepare PageDirty() checking is added.
> 
> But there is another AA deadlock here I believe.
> page_remove_rmap
>   mem_cgroup_begin_update_page_stat		<<< 1
>   set_page_dirty
>     __set_page_dirty_buffers
>       __set_page_dirty
>         mem_cgroup_begin_update_page_stat	<<< 2
> 	  move_lock_mem_cgroup
> 	    spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg->move_lock, *flags);

JFYI since abf09bed (s390/mm: implement software dirty bits) this is no
longer possible. I haven't checked wheter there are other cases like
this one and it should be better if mem_cgroup_begin_update_page_stat
was recursive safe if that can be done without too many hacks.
I will have a look at this (hopefully) sometimes next week.

[...]
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/