linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 14/21] mm/compaction: do page isolation first in compaction

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: <d9818e06-95f1-9f21-05c0-98f29ea96d89@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:22:27 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 14/21] mm/compaction: do page isolation first in
 compaction



在 2020/8/10 下午10:41, Alexander Duyck 写道:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:10 AM Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 在 2020/8/7 下午10:51, Alexander Duyck 写道:
>>> I wonder if this entire section shouldn't be restructured. This is the
>>> only spot I can see where we are resetting the LRU flag instead of
>>> pulling the page from the LRU list with the lock held. Looking over
>>> the code it seems like something like that should be possible. I am
>>> not sure the LRU lock is really protecting us in either the
>>> PageCompound check nor the skip bits. It seems like holding a
>>> reference on the page should prevent it from switching between
>>> compound or not, and the skip bits are per pageblock with the LRU bits
>>> being per node/memcg which I would think implies that we could have
>>> multiple LRU locks that could apply to a single skip bit.
>>
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> I don't find problem yet on compound or skip bit usage. Would you clarify the
>> issue do you concerned?
>>
>> Thanks!
> 
> The point I was getting at is that the LRU lock is being used to
> protect these and with your changes I don't think that makes sense
> anymore.
> 
> The skip bits are per-pageblock bits. With your change the LRU lock is
> now per memcg first and then per node. As such I do not believe it
> really provides any sort of exclusive access to the skip bits. I still
> have to look into this more, but it seems like you need a lock per
> either section or zone that can be used to protect those bits and deal
> with this sooner rather than waiting until you have found an LRU page.
> The one part that is confusing though is that the definition of the
> skip bits seems to call out that they are a hint since they are not
> protected by a lock, but that is exactly what has been happening here.
> 

The skip bits are safe here, since even it race with other skip action,
It will still skip out. The skip action is try not to compaction too much,
not a exclusive action needs avoid race.


> The point I was getting at with the PageCompound check is that instead
> of needing the LRU lock you should be able to look at PageCompound as
> soon as you call get_page_unless_zero() and preempt the need to set
> the LRU bit again. Instead of trying to rely on the LRU lock to
> guarantee that the page hasn't been merged you could just rely on the
> fact that you are holding a reference to it so it isn't going to
> switch between being compound or order 0 since it cannot be freed. It
> spoils the idea I originally had of combining the logic for
> get_page_unless_zero and TestClearPageLRU into a single function, but
> the advantage is you aren't clearing the LRU flag unless you are
> actually going to pull the page from the LRU list.

Sorry, I still can not follow you here. Compound code part is unchanged
and follow the original logical. So would you like to pose a new code to
see if its works?

Thanks
Alex

> 
> My main worry is that this is the one spot where we appear to be
> clearing the LRU bit without ever actually pulling the page off of the
> LRU list, and I am thinking we would be better served by addressing
> the skip and PageCompound checks earlier rather than adding code to
> set the bit again if either of those cases are encountered. This way
> we don't pseudo-pin pages in the LRU if they are compound or supposed
> to be skipped.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - Alex
>