linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm: Assign id to every memcg-aware shrinker

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:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:15:04 +0300
From:   Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        pombredanne@...b.com, stummala@...eaurora.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, guro@...com,
        mka@...omium.org, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp,
        chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, longman@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org,
        hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, shakeelb@...gle.com, jbacik@...com,
        linux@...ck-us.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm: Assign id to every memcg-aware shrinker

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 06:09:35PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Hi, Vladimir,
> 
> thanks for your review!
> 
> On 24.03.2018 21:40, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > Hello Kirill,
> > 
> > I don't have any objections to the idea behind this patch set.
> > Well, at least I don't know how to better tackle the problem you
> > describe in the cover letter. Please, see below for my comments
> > regarding implementation details.
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:21:17PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> The patch introduces shrinker::id number, which is used to enumerate
> >> memcg-aware shrinkers. The number start from 0, and the code tries
> >> to maintain it as small as possible.
> >>
> >> This will be used as to represent a memcg-aware shrinkers in memcg
> >> shrinkers map.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/shrinker.h |    1 +
> >>  mm/vmscan.c              |   59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/shrinker.h b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> >> index a3894918a436..738de8ef5246 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/shrinker.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> >> @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ struct shrinker {
> >>  
> >>  	/* These are for internal use */
> >>  	struct list_head list;
> >> +	int id;
> > 
> > This definition could definitely use a comment.
> > 
> > BTW shouldn't we ifdef it?
> 
> Ok
> 
> >>  	/* objs pending delete, per node */
> >>  	atomic_long_t *nr_deferred;
> >>  };
> >> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> index 8fcd9f8d7390..91b5120b924f 100644
> >> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> @@ -159,6 +159,56 @@ unsigned long vm_total_pages;
> >>  static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
> >>  static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
> >>  
> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) && !defined(CONFIG_SLOB)
> >> +static DEFINE_IDA(bitmap_id_ida);
> >> +static DECLARE_RWSEM(bitmap_rwsem);
> > 
> > Can't we reuse shrinker_rwsem for protecting the ida?
> 
> I think it won't be better, since we allocate memory under this semaphore.
> After we use shrinker_rwsem, we'll have to allocate the memory with GFP_ATOMIC,
> which does not seems good. Currently, the patchset makes shrinker_rwsem be taken
> for a small time, just to assign already allocated memory to maps.

AFAIR it's OK to sleep under an rwsem so GFP_ATOMIC wouldn't be
necessary. Anyway, we only need to allocate memory when we extend
shrinker bitmaps, which is rare. In fact, there can only be a limited
number of such calls, as we never shrink these bitmaps (which is fine
by me).

> 
> >> +static int bitmap_id_start;
> >> +
> >> +static int alloc_shrinker_id(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> >> +{
> >> +	int id, ret;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE))
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +retry:
> >> +	ida_pre_get(&bitmap_id_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	down_write(&bitmap_rwsem);
> >> +	ret = ida_get_new_above(&bitmap_id_ida, bitmap_id_start, &id);
> > 
> > AFAIK ida always allocates the smallest available id so you don't need
> > to keep track of bitmap_id_start.
> 
> I saw mnt_alloc_group_id() does the same, so this was the reason, the additional
> variable was used. Doesn't this gives a good advise to ida and makes it find
> a free id faster?

As Matthew pointed out, this is rather pointless.