[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod5XC+v_ThY=QyiXu9uWgkuc6x63jwUjW9mdWueoPh3LBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:02:22 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] mm: memcontrol: fix theoretical race in charge moving
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:11 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> The move_lock is a per-memcg lock, but the VM accounting code that
> needs to acquire it comes from the page and follows page->mem_cgroup
> under RCU protection. That means that the page becomes unlocked not
> when we drop the move_lock, but when we update page->mem_cgroup. And
> that assignment doesn't imply any memory ordering. If that pointer
> write gets reordered against the reads of the page state -
> page_mapped, PageDirty etc. the state may change while we rely on it
> being stable and we can end up corrupting the counters.
>
> Place an SMP memory barrier to make sure we're done with all page
> state by the time the new page->mem_cgroup becomes visible.
>
> Also replace the open-coded move_lock with a lock_page_memcg() to make
> it more obvious what we're serializing against.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists