linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] list_lru: Prefetch neighboring list entries before acquiring lock

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]

Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:54:04 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] list_lru: Prefetch neighboring list entries before
 acquiring lock

On 11/29/2017 07:42 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:53:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:17:34 -0500 Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
>>> The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
>>> of the two neighboring list entries in order to get the deletion done.
>>> That can take a while if the cachelines aren't there yet, thus
>>> prolonging the lock hold time.
>>>
>>> To reduce the lock hold time, the cachelines of the two neighboring
>>> list entries are now prefetched before acquiring the list_lru_node's
>>> lock.
>>>
>>> Using a multi-threaded test program that created a large number
>>> of dentries and then killed them, the execution time was reduced
>>> from 38.5s to 36.6s after applying the patch on a 2-socket 36-core
>>> 72-thread x86-64 system.
>> Patch looks good.
>>
>> Can someone (Dave?) please explain why list_lru_del() supports deletion
>> of an already list_empty(item)?
>> This seems a rather dangerous thing to
>> encourage.  Use cases I can think of are:
>>
>> a) item is already reliably deleted, so why the heck was the caller
>>    calling list_lru_del() and 
> Higher level operations can race. e.g. caller looks up an object,
> finds it on the LRU, takes a reference. Then calls list_lru_del()
> to remove it from the LRU. It blocks 'cause it can't get the list
> lock as....
>
> ... Meanwhile, the list shrinker is running, sees the object on the
> LRU list, sees it has a valid reference count, does lazy LRU cleanup
> by runnning list_lru_isolate() on the object which removes it from
> the LRU list. Eventually it drops the list lock, and ....
>
> ... the original thread gets the lock in list_lru_del() and sees the
> object has already been removed from the LRU....
>
> IOWs, this sort of boilerplate code is potentially dangerous if
> list_lru_del() can't handle items that have already been removed
> from the list:
>
> 	if (!list_empty(&obj->lru))
> 		list_lru_del(&obj->lru);
>
> Because this:
>
> 	if (!list_empty(&obj->lru))
> 		<preempt>
> 		<shrinker removes obj from LRU>
> 		list_lru_del(&obj->lru);
> 			<SPLAT>
>
> Would result in bad things happening....
>
> And, from that perspective, the racy shortcut in the proposed patch
> is wrong, too. Prefetch is fine, but in general shortcutting list
> empty checks outside the internal lock isn't.

For the record, I add one more list_empty() check at the beginning of
list_lru_del() in the patch for 2 purpose:
1. it allows the code to bail out early.
2. It make sure the cacheline of the list_head entry itself is loaded.

Other than that, I only add a likely() qualifier to the existing
list_empty() check within the lock critical region.

Cheers,
Longman