linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched/core: Don't use dying mm as active

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: <31cea85f-8d8e-a701-db75-fe1ec67d6c29@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:05:48 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/core: Don't use dying mm as active_mm of
 kthreads

On 7/30/19 3:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 29-07-19 17:42:20, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 7/29/19 5:21 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 17:07 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> It was found that a dying mm_struct where the owning task has exited
>>>> can stay on as active_mm of kernel threads as long as no other user
>>>> tasks run on those CPUs that use it as active_mm. This prolongs the
>>>> life time of dying mm holding up some resources that cannot be freed
>>>> on a mostly idle system.
>>> On what kernels does this happen?
>>>
>>> Don't we explicitly flush all lazy TLB CPUs at exit
>>> time, when we are about to free page tables?
>> There are still a couple of calls that will be done until mm_count
>> reaches 0:
>>
>> - mm_free_pgd(mm);
>> - destroy_context(mm);
>> - mmu_notifier_mm_destroy(mm);
>> - check_mm(mm);
>> - put_user_ns(mm->user_ns);
>>
>> These are not big items, but holding it off for a long time is still not
>> a good thing.
> It would be helpful to give a ball park estimation of how much that
> actually is. If we are talking about few pages worth of pages per idle
> cpu in the worst case then I am not sure we want to find an elaborate
> way around that. We are quite likely having more in per-cpu caches in
> different subsystems already. It is also quite likely that large
> machines with many CPUs will have a lot of memory as well.

I think they are relatively small. So I am not going to pursue it
further at this point.

Cheers,
Longman