linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/28] mm, page_alloc: Move might_sleep

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:	Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:41:22 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/28] mm, page_alloc: Move might_sleep_if check to the
 allocator slowpath

On 04/15/2016 11:07 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> There is a debugging check for callers that specify __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM
> from a context that cannot sleep. Triggering this is almost certainly
> a bug but it's also overhead in the fast path.

For CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, enabling is asking for the overhead. But for 
CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY which turns it into _cond_resched(), I guess it's not.

> Move the check to the slow
> path. It'll be harder to trigger as it'll only be checked when watermarks
> are depleted but it'll also only be checked in a path that can sleep.

Hmm what about zone_reclaim_mode=1, should the check be also duplicated to that 
part of get_page_from_freelist()?

> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> ---
>   mm/page_alloc.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 21aaef6ddd7a..9ef2f4ab9ca5 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3176,6 +3176,8 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>   		return NULL;
>   	}
>
> +	might_sleep_if(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM);
> +
>   	/*
>   	 * We also sanity check to catch abuse of atomic reserves being used by
>   	 * callers that are not in atomic context.
> @@ -3369,8 +3371,6 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>
>   	lockdep_trace_alloc(gfp_mask);
>
> -	might_sleep_if(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM);
> -
>   	if (should_fail_alloc_page(gfp_mask, order))
>   		return NULL;
>
>