linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe requests -fix v2

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: <00d201d2829c$f233b630$d69b2290$@alibaba-inc.com>
Date:   Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:22:52 +0800
From:   "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
To:     "'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "'Thomas Gleixner'" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "'Vlastimil Babka'" <vbabka@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe requests -fix v2


On February 08, 2017 11:22 PM Mel Gorman wrote: 
> 
> preempt_enable_no_resched() was used based on review feedback that had
> no strong objection at the time. The thinking was that it avoided adding
> a preemption point where one didn't exist before so the feedback was
> applied. This reasoning was wrong.
> 
> There was an indirect preemption point as explained by Thomas Gleixner where
> an interrupt could set_need_resched() followed by preempt_enable being
> a preemption point that matters. This use of preempt_enable_no_resched
> is bad from both a mainline and RT perspective and a violation of the
> preemption mechanism. Peter Zijlstra noted that "the only acceptable use
> of preempt_enable_no_resched() is if the next statement is a schedule()
> variant".
> 
> The usage was outright broken and I should have stuck to preempt_enable()
> as it was originally developed. It's known from previous tests
> that there was no detectable difference to the performance by using
> preempt_enable_no_resched().
> 
> This is a fix to the mmotm patch
> mm-page_alloc-only-use-per-cpu-allocator-for-irq-safe-requests.patch
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> ---
Thanks for fixing it.

Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>

>  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 eaecb4b145e6..2a36dad03dac 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2520,7 +2520,7 @@ void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, bool cold)
>  	}
> 
>  out:
> -	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> +	preempt_enable();
>  }
> 
>  /*
> @@ -2686,7 +2686,7 @@ static struct page *rmqueue_pcplist(struct zone *preferred_zone,
>  		__count_zid_vm_events(PGALLOC, page_zonenum(page), 1 << order);
>  		zone_statistics(preferred_zone, zone);
>  	}
> -	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> +	preempt_enable();
>  	return page;
>  }
>