| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c5130b1b-cc60-d518-75d6-7a182fe9d343@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:13:43 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: Add function for testing if the current lruvec
lock is valid
在 2020/8/3 上午2:20, Alexander Duyck 写道:
> Feel free to fold it into your patches if you want.
>
> I think Hugh was the one that had submitted a patch that addressed it,
> and it looks like you folded that into your v17 set. It was probably
> what he had identified which was the additional LRU checks needing to
> be removed from the code.
Yes, Hugh's patch was folded into patch [PATCH v17 16/21] mm/swap: serialize memcg changes in pagevec_lru_move_fn
and your change is on patch 18. seems there are no interfere with each other.
Both of patches are fine.
Thanks
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Alex
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:55 PM Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> It looks much better than mine. and could replace 'mm/lru: introduce the relock_page_lruvec function'
>> with your author signed. :)
>>
>> BTW,
>> it's the rcu_read_lock cause the will-it-scale/page_fault3 regression which you mentained in another
>> letter?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Alex
>>
>> 在 2020/8/1 上午5:14, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com 写道:
>>> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> When testing for relock we can avoid the need for RCU locking if we simply
>>> compare the page pgdat and memcg pointers versus those that the lruvec is
>>> holding. By doing this we can avoid the extra pointer walks and accesses of
>>> the memory cgroup.
>>>
>>> In addition we can avoid the checks entirely if lruvec is currently NULL.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>> index 6e670f991b42..7a02f00bf3de 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>> @@ -405,6 +405,22 @@ static inline struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_lruvec(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>>>
>>> struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(struct page *, struct pglist_data *);
>>>
>>> +static inline bool lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(struct page *page,
>>> + struct lruvec *lruvec)
>>> +{
>>> + pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
>>> + const struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>>> + struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz;
>>> +
>>> + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
>>> + return lruvec == &pgdat->__lruvec;
>>> +
>>> + mz = container_of(lruvec, struct mem_cgroup_per_node, lruvec);
>>> + memcg = page->mem_cgroup ? : root_mem_cgroup;
>>> +
>>> + return lruvec->pgdat == pgdat && mz->memcg == memcg;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_task(struct task_struct *p);
>>>
>>> struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
>>> @@ -880,6 +896,14 @@ static inline struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(struct page *page,
>>> return &pgdat->__lruvec;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static inline bool lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(struct page *page,
>>> + struct lruvec *lruvec)
>>> +{
>>> + pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
>>> +
>>> + return lruvec == &pgdat->__lruvec;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static inline struct mem_cgroup *parent_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>> {
>>> return NULL;
>>> @@ -1317,18 +1341,12 @@ static inline void unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(struct lruvec *lruvec,
>>> static inline struct lruvec *relock_page_lruvec_irq(struct page *page,
>>> struct lruvec *locked_lruvec)
>>> {
>>> - struct pglist_data *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
>>> - bool locked;
>>> + if (locked_lruvec) {
>>> + if (lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(page, locked_lruvec))
>>> + return locked_lruvec;
>>>
>>> - rcu_read_lock();
>>> - locked = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat) == locked_lruvec;
>>> - rcu_read_unlock();
>>> -
>>> - if (locked)
>>> - return locked_lruvec;
>>> -
>>> - if (locked_lruvec)
>>> unlock_page_lruvec_irq(locked_lruvec);
>>> + }
>>>
>>> return lock_page_lruvec_irq(page);
>>> }
>>> @@ -1337,18 +1355,12 @@ static inline struct lruvec *relock_page_lruvec_irq(struct page *page,
>>> static inline struct lruvec *relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(struct page *page,
>>> struct lruvec *locked_lruvec, unsigned long *flags)
>>> {
>>> - struct pglist_data *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
>>> - bool locked;
>>> -
>>> - rcu_read_lock();
>>> - locked = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat) == locked_lruvec;
>>> - rcu_read_unlock();
>>> -
>>> - if (locked)
>>> - return locked_lruvec;
>>> + if (locked_lruvec) {
>>> + if (lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(page, locked_lruvec))
>>> + return locked_lruvec;
>>>
>>> - if (locked_lruvec)
>>> unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(locked_lruvec, *flags);
>>> + }
>>>
>>> return lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, flags);
>>> }
>>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists