| 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: <20170822193405.qxixggl3kwlmronh@esperanza>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 22:34:05 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: apolyakov@...et.ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: Make list_lru_node::memcg_lrus RCU protected
Hello Kirill,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 03:29:26PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> The array list_lru_node::memcg_lrus::list_lru_one[] only grows,
> and it never shrinks. The growths happens in memcg_update_list_lru_node(),
> and old array's members remain the same after it.
>
> So, the access to the array's members may become RCU protected,
> and it's possible to avoid using list_lru_node::lock to dereference it.
> This will be used to get list's nr_items in next patch lockless.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
The patch looks very nice. A few really minor comments below.
First, I don't think it's worth splitting this patch in three: patch #1
introduces a structure member that is only used in patch #2, while patch
#2 adds RCU protection, but nobody benefits from it until patch #3 is
applied. Since patches #1 and #3 are tiny, why don't you fold them in
patch #2?
> diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
> @@ -42,24 +42,30 @@ static void list_lru_unregister(struct list_lru *lru)
> #if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) && !defined(CONFIG_SLOB)
> static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
> {
> + struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
> /*
> * This needs node 0 to be always present, even
> * in the systems supporting sparse numa ids.
> + *
> + * Here we only check the pointer is not NULL,
> + * so RCU lock is not need.
> */
> - return !!lru->node[0].memcg_lrus;
> + memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_check(lru->node[0].memcg_lrus, true);
> + return !!memcg_lrus;
IIRC you don't need rcu_dereference() here, because you don't actually
dereference anything. The compiler shouldn't complain if you leaved this
as is.
> }
>
> static inline struct list_lru_one *
> list_lru_from_memcg_idx(struct list_lru_node *nlru, int idx)
> {
> + struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
> /*
> - * The lock protects the array of per cgroup lists from relocation
> - * (see memcg_update_list_lru_node).
> + * Either lock and RCU protects the array of per cgroup lists
Typo: s/and/or/
> + * from relocation (see memcg_update_list_lru_node).
> */
> - lockdep_assert_held(&nlru->lock);
> - if (nlru->memcg_lrus && idx >= 0)
> - return nlru->memcg_lrus->lru[idx];
> -
> + memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_check(nlru->memcg_lrus,
> + lockdep_is_held(&nlru->lock));
> + if (memcg_lrus && idx >= 0)
> + return memcg_lrus->lru[idx];
> return &nlru->lru;
> }
>
> @@ -76,9 +82,12 @@ static __always_inline struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_kmem(void *ptr)
> static inline struct list_lru_one *
> list_lru_from_kmem(struct list_lru_node *nlru, void *ptr)
> {
> + struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>
> - if (!nlru->memcg_lrus)
> + /* Here we only check the pointer is not NULL, so RCU lock isn't need */
> + memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_check(nlru->memcg_lrus, true);
> + if (!memcg_lrus)
Again, rcu_dereference() is redundant.
> return &nlru->lru;
>
> memcg = mem_cgroup_from_kmem(ptr);
> @@ -323,25 +332,33 @@ static int __memcg_init_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus,
>
> static int memcg_init_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru)
> {
> + struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
> int size = memcg_nr_cache_ids;
>
> - nlru->memcg_lrus = kmalloc(sizeof(struct list_lru_memcg) +
> - size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!nlru->memcg_lrus)
> + memcg_lrus = kmalloc(sizeof(*memcg_lrus) +
> + size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!memcg_lrus)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - if (__memcg_init_list_lru_node(nlru->memcg_lrus, 0, size)) {
> - kfree(nlru->memcg_lrus);
> + if (__memcg_init_list_lru_node(memcg_lrus, 0, size)) {
> + kfree(memcg_lrus);
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
> + rcu_assign_pointer(nlru->memcg_lrus, memcg_lrus);
You don't need a memory barrier here, so RCU_INIT_POINTER() would fit
better.
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> static void memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru)
> {
> - __memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(nlru->memcg_lrus, 0, memcg_nr_cache_ids);
> - kfree(nlru->memcg_lrus);
> + struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
> + /*
> + * This is called when shrinker has already been unregistered,
> + * and nobody can use it. So, it's not need to use kfree_rcu().
Typo: s/it's not need/there's no need/
> + */
> + memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_check(nlru->memcg_lrus, true);
IIRC there's rcu_dereference_protected() for cases when you don't
expect any changes to an __rcu variable. Let's use it instead of
rcu_dereference_check() where appropriate.
> + __memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(memcg_lrus, 0, memcg_nr_cache_ids);
> + kfree(memcg_lrus);
> }
>
> static int memcg_update_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru,
> @@ -350,8 +367,10 @@ static int memcg_update_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru,
> struct list_lru_memcg *old, *new;
>
> BUG_ON(old_size > new_size);
> + lockdep_assert_held(&list_lrus_mutex);
>
> - old = nlru->memcg_lrus;
> + /* list_lrus_mutex is held, nobody can change memcg_lrus. Silence RCU */
> + old = rcu_dereference_check(nlru->memcg_lrus, true);
s/rcu_dereference_check/rcu_dereference_protected/
> new = kmalloc(sizeof(*new) + new_size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!new)
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -364,26 +383,31 @@ static int memcg_update_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru,
> memcpy(&new->lru, &old->lru, old_size * sizeof(void *));
>
> /*
> - * The lock guarantees that we won't race with a reader
> - * (see list_lru_from_memcg_idx).
> + * The locking below allows the readers, that already take nlru->lock,
> + * not to use additional rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pair.
Rephrase a little bit?
The locking below allows readers that hold nlru->lock avoid taking
rcu_read_lock (see list_lru_from_memcg_idx).
> *
> * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,
> * we have to use IRQ-safe primitives here to avoid deadlock.
> */
> spin_lock_irq(&nlru->lock);
> - nlru->memcg_lrus = new;
> + rcu_assign_pointer(nlru->memcg_lrus, new);
> spin_unlock_irq(&nlru->lock);
>
> - kfree(old);
> + kfree_rcu(old, rcu);
> return 0;
> }
>
> static void memcg_cancel_update_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru,
> int old_size, int new_size)
> {
> + struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&list_lrus_mutex);
> + memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_check(nlru->memcg_lrus, true);
s/rcu_dereference_check/rcu_dereference_protected/
> +
> /* do not bother shrinking the array back to the old size, because we
> * cannot handle allocation failures here */
> - __memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(nlru->memcg_lrus, old_size, new_size);
> + __memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(memcg_lrus, old_size, new_size);
> }
>
> static int memcg_init_list_lru(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_aware)
> @@ -400,7 +424,7 @@ static int memcg_init_list_lru(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_aware)
> return 0;
> fail:
> for (i = i - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> - if (!lru->node[i].memcg_lrus)
> + if (!rcu_dereference_check(lru->node[i].memcg_lrus, true))
No need in rcu_dereference() here as you don't actually dereference
anything.
> continue;
> memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(&lru->node[i]);
> }
> @@ -434,7 +458,7 @@ static int memcg_update_list_lru(struct list_lru *lru,
> return 0;
> fail:
> for (i = i - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> - if (!lru->node[i].memcg_lrus)
> + if (!rcu_dereference_check(lru->node[i].memcg_lrus, true))
Ditto.
> continue;
>
> memcg_cancel_update_list_lru_node(&lru->node[i],
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists