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  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]
Date:   Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:53:20 -0700
From:   Michel Lespinasse <>
To:     Chinwen Chang <>
Cc:     Matthias Brugger <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Daniel Jordan <>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,
        Steven Price <>,
        Song Liu <>,
        Jimmy Assarsson <>,
        Huang Ying <>,
        LKML <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Try to release mmap_lock temporarily in smaps_rollup

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 7:14 PM Chinwen Chang
<> wrote:
> Recently, we have observed some janky issues caused by unpleasantly long
> contention on mmap_lock which is held by smaps_rollup when probing large
> processes. To address the problem, we let smaps_rollup detect if anyone
> wants to acquire mmap_lock for write attempts. If yes, just release the
> lock temporarily to ease the contention.
> smaps_rollup is a procfs interface which allows users to summarize the
> process's memory usage without the overhead of seq_* calls. Android uses it
> to sample the memory usage of various processes to balance its memory pool
> sizes. If no one wants to take the lock for write requests, smaps_rollup
> with this patch will behave like the original one.
> Although there are on-going mmap_lock optimizations like range-based locks,
> the lock applied to smaps_rollup would be the coarse one, which is hard to
> avoid the occurrence of aforementioned issues. So the detection and
> temporary release for write attempts on mmap_lock in smaps_rollup is still
> necessary.

I do not mind extending the mmap lock API as needed. However, in the
past I have tried adding rwsem_is_contended to mlock(), and later to
mm_populate() paths, and IIRC gotten pushback on it both times. I
don't feel strongly on this, but would prefer if someone else approved
the rwsem_is_contended() use case.

Couple related questions, how many VMAs are we looking at here ? Would
need_resched() be workable too ?

Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists