linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/page_alloc: protect pcp->batch accesses with ACCESS

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: <56FC819C.5010305@huawei.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:47:08 +0800
From:	Hekuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
To:	Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	<rientjes@...gle.com>, <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	<gilad@...yossef.com>, <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	<mgorman@...e.de>, <penberg@...nel.org>, <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/page_alloc: protect pcp->batch accesses with
 ACCESS_ONCE"

hi

在 2016/3/31 9:39, Zefan Li 写道:
> On 2016/3/31 9:14, Hekuang wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> 在 2016/3/30 19:10, Michal Hocko 写道:
>>> On Wed 30-03-16 18:51:12, Hekuang wrote:
>>>> hi
>>>>
>>>> 在 2016/3/30 18:38, Mel Gorman 写道:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:22:07AM +0000, He Kuang wrote:
>>>>>> This reverts commit 998d39cb236fe464af86a3492a24d2f67ee1efc2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When local irq is disabled, a percpu variable does not change, so we can
>>>>>> remove the access macros and let the compiler optimize the code safely.
>>>>>>
>>>>> batch can be changed from other contexts. Why is this safe?
>>>>>
>>>> I've mistakenly thought that per_cpu variable can only be accessed by that
>>>> cpu.
>>> git blame would point you to 998d39cb236f ("mm/page_alloc: protect
>>> pcp->batch accesses with ACCESS_ONCE"). I haven't looked into the code
>>> deeply to confirm this is still the case but it would be a good lead
>>> that this is not that simple. ACCESS_ONCE resp. {READ,WRITE}_ONCE are
>>> usually quite subtle so I would encourage you or anybody else who try to
>>> remove them to study the code and the history deeper before removing
>>> them.
>>>
>> Thank you for responding, I've read that commit and related articles and not sending
>> mail casually, though you may think it's a stupid patch. I'm a beginner and I think
>> sending mails to maillist is a effective way to learn kernel, And, sure i'll be more careful and
>> well prepared next time :)
>>
> pcp->batch can be changed in a different cpu. You may read percpu_pagelist_fraction_sysctl_handler()
> to see how that can happen.
>
>
OK. got it!