linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] mm/swap: Regular page swap optimizations

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: <20170117074939.GA19699@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:49:39 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, aaron.lu@...el.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] mm/swap: Regular page swap optimizations

On Tue 17-01-17 09:06:04, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > I am seeing a lot of preempt unsafe warnings with the current mmotm and
> > I assume that this patchset has introduced the issue. I haven't checked
> > more closely but get_swap_page didn't use this_cpu_ptr before "mm/swap:
> > add cache for swap slots allocation"
> >
> > [   57.812314] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: kswapd0/527
> > [   57.814360] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19
> > [   57.815237] CPU: 1 PID: 527 Comm: kswapd0 Tainted: G        W 4.9.0-mmotm-00135-g4e9a9895ebef #1042
> > [   57.816019] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.1-1 04/01/2014
> > [   57.816019]  ffffc900001939c0 ffffffff81329c60 0000000000000001 ffffffff81a0ce06
> > [   57.816019]  ffffc900001939f0 ffffffff81343c2a 00000000000137a0 ffffea0000dfd2a0
> > [   57.816019]  ffff88003c49a700 ffffc90000193b10 ffffc90000193a00 ffffffff81343c53
> > [   57.816019] Call Trace:
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81329c60>] dump_stack+0x68/0x92
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81343c2a>] check_preemption_disabled+0xce/0xe0
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81343c53>] debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff8115f06f>] get_swap_page+0x19/0x183
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff8114e01d>] shmem_writepage+0xce/0x38c
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81148916>] shrink_page_list+0x81f/0xdbf
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81149652>] shrink_inactive_list+0x2ab/0x594
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff8114a22f>] shrink_node_memcg+0x4c7/0x673
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff8114a49f>] shrink_node+0xc4/0x282
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff8114a49f>] ? shrink_node+0xc4/0x282
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff8114b8cb>] kswapd+0x656/0x834
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff8114b275>] ? mem_cgroup_shrink_node+0x2e1/0x2e1
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81069fb4>] ? call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x124/0x12d
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81073621>] kthread+0xf9/0x101
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81660198>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x2c/0x4a
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81073528>] ? kthread_park+0x5a/0x5a
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81069e90>] ? umh_complete+0x25/0x25
> > [   57.816019]  [<ffffffff81660b07>] ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> 
> Sorry for bothering, we should have tested this before.

I am always running my tests with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y which is what
has caught this one.

[...]
> > would be a way to go but the function takes a sleeping lock so disabling
> > the preemption is not a way forward. So this is either preempt safe
> > for some reason - which should be IMHO documented in a comment - and
> > raw_cpu_ptr can be used or this needs a deeper thought.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out this.
> 
> We think this is preempt safe.  During the development, we have
> considered the possible preemption between getting the per-CPU pointer
> and its usage, and implemented the code to make it work at that
> situation.  We will change the code to use raw_cpu_ptr() and add a
> comment for it.

FWIW s@...s_cpu_ptr@..._cpu_ptr@ which I am using as a workaround now
hasn't seemed to cause any issue. At least nothing observable like a
crash.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs