linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 02/10] mm/memcg: fold lru_lock in lock_page

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: <2ba8a04e-d8e0-1d50-addc-dbe1b4d8e0f1@yandex-team.ru>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:55:59 +0300
From:   Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, willy@...radead.org,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/10] mm/memcg: fold lru_lock in lock_page_lru



On 13/01/2020 12.45, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2020/1/10 下午4:49, Konstantin Khlebnikov 写道:
>> On 25/12/2019 12.04, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>   From the commit_charge's explanations and mem_cgroup_commit_charge
>>> comments, as well as call path when lrucare is ture, The lru_lock is
>>> just to guard the task migration(which would be lead to move_account)
>>> So it isn't needed when !PageLRU, and better be fold into PageLRU to
>>> reduce lock contentions.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
>>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>>> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>>> Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org
>>> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>> ---
>>>    mm/memcontrol.c | 9 ++++-----
>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> index c5b5f74cfd4d..0ad10caabc3d 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>> @@ -2572,12 +2572,11 @@ static void cancel_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
>>>      static void lock_page_lru(struct page *page, int *isolated)
>>>    {
>>> -    pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
>>> -
>>> -    spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>>>        if (PageLRU(page)) {
>>> +        pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
>>>            struct lruvec *lruvec;
>>>    +        spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>>
>> That's wrong. Here PageLRU must be checked again under lru_lock.
> Hi, Konstantin,
> 
> For logical remain, we can get the lock and then release for !PageLRU.
> but I still can figure out the problem scenario. Would like to give more hints?

That's trivial race: page could be isolated from lru between

if (PageLRU(page))
and
spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);

> 
> 
>>
>>
>> Also I don't like these functions:
>> - called lock/unlock but actually also isolates
>> - used just once
>> - pgdat evaluated twice
> 
> That's right. I will fold these functions into commit_charge.
> 
> Thanks
> Alex
>