[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <BE34F3EE-B992-418E-B2A4-D1FDDCD86906@lca.pw>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:26:35 -0500
From: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: fix data races at kswapd_classzone_idx
> On Feb 25, 2020, at 9:11 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:55:26 -0500 Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
>
>> pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx could be accessed concurrently in
>> wakeup_kswapd(). Plain writes and reads without any lock protection
>> result in data races. Fix them by adding a pair of READ|WRITE_ONCE() as
>> well as saving a branch (compilers might well optimize the original code
>> in an unintentional way anyway). The data races were reported by KCSAN,
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -3961,11 +3961,10 @@ void wakeup_kswapd(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_flags, int order,
>> return;
>> pgdat = zone->zone_pgdat;
>>
>> - if (pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx == MAX_NR_ZONES)
>> - pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx = classzone_idx;
>> - else
>> - pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx = max(pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx,
>> - classzone_idx);
>> + if (READ_ONCE(pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx) == MAX_NR_ZONES ||
>> + READ_ONCE(pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx) < classzone_idx)
>> + WRITE_ONCE(pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx, classzone_idx);
>> +
>> pgdat->kswapd_order = max(pgdat->kswapd_order, order);
>> if (!waitqueue_active(&pgdat->kswapd_wait))
>> return;
>
> This is very partial, isn't it? The above code itself is racy against
> other code which manipulates ->kswapd_classzone_idx and the
> manipulation in allow_direct_reclaim() is performed by threads other
> than kswapd and so need the READ_ONCE treatment and is still racy with
> that?
Right, I suppose allow_direct_reclaim() could use some treatment too.
>
> I guess occasional races here don't really matter, but a grossly wrong
> read from load tearing might matter. In which case shouldn't we be
> defending against them in all cases where non-kswapd threads read this
> field?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists