linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 for v3.18] mm/compaction: skip the range until proper target pageblock is met

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]

Date:	Tue, 04 Nov 2014 09:46:09 +0100
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 for v3.18] mm/compaction: skip the range until proper
 target pageblock is met

On 11/04/2014 03:37 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> commit 7d49d8868336 ("mm, compaction: reduce zone checking frequency in
> the migration scanner") makes side-effect that change iteration
> range calculation. Before change, block_end_pfn is calculated using
> start_pfn, but, now, blindly add pageblock_nr_pages to previous value.
>
> This cause the problem that isolation_start_pfn is larger than
> block_end_pfn when we isolate the page with more than pageblock order.
> In this case, isolation would be failed due to invalid range parameter.
>
> To prevent this, this patch recalculate the range to find valid target
> pageblock. Without this patch, CMA with more than pageblock order always
> fail, but, with this patch, it will succeed.
>
> Changes from v1:
> recalculate the range rather than just skipping to find valid one.
> add code comment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>

(nitpick below)

> ---
>   mm/compaction.c |   10 ++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index ec74cf0..4f0151c 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -479,6 +479,16 @@ isolate_freepages_range(struct compact_control *cc,
>
>   		block_end_pfn = min(block_end_pfn, end_pfn);
>
> +		/*
> +		 * pfn could pass the block_end_pfn if isolated freepage
> +		 * is more than pageblock order. In this case, we adjust
> +		 * scanning range to right one.
> +		 */
> +		if (pfn >= block_end_pfn) {
> +			block_end_pfn = ALIGN(pfn + 1, pageblock_nr_pages);
> +			block_end_pfn = min(block_end_pfn, end_pfn);
> +		}

If you moved this up, there could be just one min(block_end_pfn, 
end_pfn) instance in the code. If the first min() makes block_end_pfn == 
end_pfn and pfn >= block_end_pfn, then pfn >= end_pfn and the loop would 
be terminated already (assuming this was why you left the first min() 
before the new check). But I don't mind if you leave it like this.

> +
>   		if (!pageblock_pfn_to_page(pfn, block_end_pfn, cc->zone))
>   			break;
>
>

--
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/