linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-hotplug: Switch locking to a percpu rwsem

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: <fc6676da-dc20-a80c-82b3-ae479af3e6ad@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:56:44 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-hotplug: Switch locking to a percpu rwsem

On 06/30/2017 04:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> On 06/30/2017 01:15 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> So I like this simplification a lot! Even if we can get rid of the
>>>> stop_machine eventually this patch would be an improvement. A short
>>>> comment on why the per-cpu semaphore over the regular one is better
>>>> would be nice.
>>>
>>> Yes, will add one.
>>>
>>> The main point is that the current locking construct is evading lockdep due
>>> to the ability to support recursive locking, which I did not observe so
>>> far.
>>>
>>
>> Like this?
> 
> Cute.....
> 
>> [  131.023034] Call Trace:
>> [  131.023034]  dump_stack+0x85/0xc7
>> [  131.023034]  __lock_acquire+0x1747/0x17a0
>> [  131.023034]  ? lru_add_drain_all+0x3d/0x190
>> [  131.023034]  ? __mutex_lock+0x218/0x940
>> [  131.023034]  ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>> [  131.023034]  lock_acquire+0x103/0x200
>> [  131.023034]  ? lock_acquire+0x103/0x200
>> [  131.023034]  ? lru_add_drain_all+0x42/0x190
>> [  131.023034]  cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0x80
>> [  131.023034]  ? lru_add_drain_all+0x42/0x190
>> [  131.023034]  lru_add_drain_all+0x42/0x190
>> [  131.023034]  __offline_pages.constprop.25+0x5de/0x870
>> [  131.023034]  offline_pages+0xc/0x10
>> [  131.023034]  memory_subsys_offline+0x43/0x70
>> [  131.023034]  device_offline+0x83/0xb0
>> [  131.023034]  store_mem_state+0xdb/0xe0
>> [  131.023034]  dev_attr_store+0x13/0x20
>> [  131.023034]  sysfs_kf_write+0x40/0x50
>> [  131.023034]  kernfs_fop_write+0x130/0x1b0
>> [  131.023034]  __vfs_write+0x23/0x130
>> [  131.023034]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x6d/0x80
>> [  131.023034]  ? rcu_sync_lockdep_assert+0x2a/0x50
>> [  131.023034]  ? __sb_start_write+0xd4/0x1c0
>> [  131.023034]  ? vfs_write+0x1a8/0x1d0
>> [  131.023034]  vfs_write+0xc8/0x1d0
>> [  131.023034]  SyS_write+0x44/0xa0
> 
> Why didn't trigger that here? Bah, I should have become suspicious due to
> not seeing a splat ....
> 
> The patch below should cure that.
> 

FWIW, it works for me.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
>