linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] mm, compaction: skip buddy pages by their order in the migrate scanner

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1406121446070.12437@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] mm, compaction: skip buddy pages by their order
 in the migrate scanner

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> > Ok, and I won't continue to push the point.
> 
> I'd rather know I'm correct and not just persistent enough :) If you confirm
> that your compiler behaves differently, then maybe making page_order_unsafe a
> #define instead of inline function would prevent this issue?
> 

The reason I was hesitatnt is because there's no way I can prove under all 
possible circumstances in which page_order_unsafe() could be used that gcc 
won't make the decision to reaccess.  I personally didn't think that doing

	if (PageBuddy(page)) {
		/*
		 * Racy check since we know PageBuddy() is true and we do
		 * some sanity checking on this scan to ensure it is an
		 * appropriate order.
		 */
		unsigned long order = ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page));
		...
	}

was too much of a problem and actually put the ACCESS_ONCE() in the 
context in which it matters rather than hiding behind an inline function.

> > I think the lockless
> > suitable_migration_target() call that looks at page_order() is fine in the
> > free scanner since we use it as a racy check, but it might benefit from
> > either a comment describing the behavior or a sanity check for
> > page_order(page) <= MAX_ORDER as you've done before.
> 
> OK, I'll add that.
> 

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/