| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <97045760-77eb-c892-9bcb-daad10a1d91d@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:49:37 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/6] mm, mempolicy: stop adjusting current->il_next in
mpol_rebind_nodemask()
On 04/11/2017 09:03 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11.4.2017 19:32, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>>> The task->il_next variable remembers the last allocation node for task's
>>> MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy. mpol_rebind_nodemask() updates interleave and
>>> bind mempolicies due to changing cpuset mems. Currently it also tries to
>>> make sure that current->il_next is valid within the updated nodemask. This is
>>> bogus, because 1) we are updating potentially any task's mempolicy, not just
>>> current, and 2) we might be updating per-vma mempolicy, not task one.
>>>
>>> The interleave_nodes() function that uses il_next can cope fine with the value
>>> not being within the currently allowed nodes, so this hasn't manifested as an
>>> actual issue. Thus it also won't be an issue if we just remove this adjustment
>>> completely.
>>
>> Well, interleave_nodes() will then potentially return a node outside of
>> the allowed memory policy when its called for the first time after
>> mpol_rebind_.. . But thenn it will find the next node within the
>> nodemask and work correctly for the next invocations.
>
> Hmm, you're right. But that could be easily fixed if il_next became il_prev, so
> we would return the result of next_node_in(il_prev) and also store it as the new
> il_prev, right? I somehow assumed it already worked that way.
Like this?
----8<----
commit 0ec64a0b8e614ea655328d0fb539447c407ba7c1
Author: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Date: Mon Apr 3 13:11:32 2017 +0200
mm, mempolicy: stop adjusting current->il_next in mpol_rebind_nodemask()
The task->il_next variable stores the next allocation node id for task's
MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy. mpol_rebind_nodemask() updates interleave and
bind mempolicies due to changing cpuset mems. Currently it also tries to
make sure that current->il_next is valid within the updated nodemask. This is
bogus, because 1) we are updating potentially any task's mempolicy, not just
current, and 2) we might be updating a per-vma mempolicy, not task one.
The interleave_nodes() function that uses il_next can cope fine with the value
not being within the currently allowed nodes, so this hasn't manifested as an
actual issue.
We can remove the need for updating il_next completely by changing it to
il_prev and store the node id of the previous interleave allocation instead of
the next id. Then interleave_nodes() can calculate the next id using the
current nodemask and also store it as il_prev, except when querying the next
node via do_get_mempolicy().
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 050d7113924a..9aca0db1e588 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -886,7 +886,7 @@ struct task_struct {
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
/* Protected by alloc_lock: */
struct mempolicy *mempolicy;
- short il_next;
+ short il_prev;
short pref_node_fork;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 37d0b334bfe9..25f9bde58521 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -349,12 +349,6 @@ static void mpol_rebind_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes,
pol->v.nodes = tmp;
else
BUG();
-
- if (!node_isset(current->il_next, tmp)) {
- current->il_next = next_node_in(current->il_next, tmp);
- if (current->il_next >= MAX_NUMNODES)
- current->il_next = numa_node_id();
- }
}
static void mpol_rebind_preferred(struct mempolicy *pol,
@@ -812,9 +806,8 @@ static long do_set_mempolicy(unsigned short mode, unsigned short flags,
}
old = current->mempolicy;
current->mempolicy = new;
- if (new && new->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE &&
- nodes_weight(new->v.nodes))
- current->il_next = first_node(new->v.nodes);
+ if (new && new->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE)
+ current->il_prev = MAX_NUMNODES-1;
task_unlock(current);
mpol_put(old);
ret = 0;
@@ -863,6 +856,18 @@ static int lookup_node(unsigned long addr)
return err;
}
+/* Do dynamic interleaving for a process */
+static unsigned interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy, bool update_prev)
+{
+ unsigned next;
+ struct task_struct *me = current;
+
+ next = next_node_in(me->il_prev, policy->v.nodes);
+ if (next < MAX_NUMNODES && update_prev)
+ me->il_prev = next;
+ return next;
+}
+
/* Retrieve NUMA policy */
static long do_get_mempolicy(int *policy, nodemask_t *nmask,
unsigned long addr, unsigned long flags)
@@ -916,7 +921,7 @@ static long do_get_mempolicy(int *policy, nodemask_t *nmask,
*policy = err;
} else if (pol == current->mempolicy &&
pol->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE) {
- *policy = current->il_next;
+ *policy = interleave_nodes(current->mempolicy, false);
} else {
err = -EINVAL;
goto out;
@@ -1694,19 +1699,6 @@ static struct zonelist *policy_zonelist(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy,
return node_zonelist(nd, gfp);
}
-/* Do dynamic interleaving for a process */
-static unsigned interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
-{
- unsigned nid, next;
- struct task_struct *me = current;
-
- nid = me->il_next;
- next = next_node_in(nid, policy->v.nodes);
- if (next < MAX_NUMNODES)
- me->il_next = next;
- return nid;
-}
-
/*
* Depending on the memory policy provide a node from which to allocate the
* next slab entry.
@@ -1731,7 +1723,7 @@ unsigned int mempolicy_slab_node(void)
return policy->v.preferred_node;
case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
- return interleave_nodes(policy);
+ return interleave_nodes(policy, true);
case MPOL_BIND: {
struct zoneref *z;
@@ -1794,7 +1786,7 @@ static inline unsigned interleave_nid(struct mempolicy *pol,
off += (addr - vma->vm_start) >> shift;
return offset_il_node(pol, vma, off);
} else
- return interleave_nodes(pol);
+ return interleave_nodes(pol, true);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLBFS
@@ -2060,7 +2052,8 @@ struct page *alloc_pages_current(gfp_t gfp, unsigned order)
* nor system default_policy
*/
if (pol->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE)
- page = alloc_page_interleave(gfp, order, interleave_nodes(pol));
+ page = alloc_page_interleave(gfp, order,
+ interleave_nodes(pol, true));
else
page = __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp, order,
policy_zonelist(gfp, pol, numa_node_id()),
Powered by blists - more mailing lists