linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: page_alloc: Reduce cost of the fair zone allocation policy

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: <53E8B83D.1070004@suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:34:05 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: page_alloc: Reduce cost of the fair zone allocation
 policy

On 08/11/2014 02:12 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 07/09/2014 10:13 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -1604,6 +1604,9 @@ again:
>>>   	}
>>>
>>>   	__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH, -(1 << order));
>>
>> This can underflow zero, right?
>>
>
> Yes, because of per-cpu accounting drift.

I meant mainly because of order > 0.

>>> +	if (zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH) == 0 &&
>>
>> AFAICS, zone_page_state will correct negative values to zero only for
>> CONFIG_SMP. Won't this check be broken on !CONFIG_SMP?
>>
>
> On !CONFIG_SMP how can there be per-cpu accounting drift that would make
> that counter negative?

Well original code used "if (zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH) <= 
0)" elsewhere, that you are replacing with zone_is_fair_depleted check. 
I assumed it's because it can get negative due to order > 0. I might 
have not looked thoroughly enough but it seems to me there's nothing 
that would prevent it, such as skipping a zone because its remaining 
batch is lower than 1 << order.
So I think the check should be "<= 0" to be safe.

Vlastimil


--
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/