linux-kernel - Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO

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]

Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:27:44 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 11:52:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 01:41:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > And that enforces the GFP_NOLOCK allocation mode or some other solution
> > > unless you make a new rule that calling call_rcu() is forbidden while
> > > holding zone lock or any other lock which might be nested inside the
> > > GFP_NOWAIT zone::lock held region.
> > 
> > Again, you are correct.  Maybe the forecasted weekend heat will cause
> > my brain to hallucinate a better solution, but in the meantime, the
> > GFP_NOLOCK approach looks good from this end.
> 
> So I hate __GFP_NO_LOCKS for a whole number of reasons:
> 
>  - it should be called __GFP_LOCKLESS if anything
>  - it sprinkles a bunch of ugly branches around the allocator fast path
>  - it only works for order==0
> 
> Combined I really odn't think this should be a GFP flag. How about a
> special purpose allocation function, something like so..

This looks entirely reasonable to me!

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 901a21f61d68..cdec9c99fba7 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -4875,6 +4875,47 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__alloc_pages_nodemask);
>  
> +struct page *__rmqueue_lockless(struct zone *zone, struct per_cpu_pages *pcp)
> +{
> +	struct list_head *list;
> +	struct page *page;
> +	int migratetype;
> +
> +	for (migratetype = 0; migratetype < MIGRATE_PCPTYPES; migratetype++) {
> +		list = &pcp->list[migratetype];
> +		page = list_first_entry_or_null(list, struct page, lru);
> +		if (page && check_new_pcp(page)) {
> +			list_del(&page->lru);
> +			pcp->count--;
> +			return page;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +struct page *__alloc_page_lockless(void)
> +{
> +	struct zonelist *zonelist = node_zonelist(numa_node_id(), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct per_cpu_pages *pcp;
> +	struct page *page = NULL;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct zoneref *z;
> +	struct zone *zone;
> +
> +	for_each_zone_zonelist(zone, z, zonelist, ZONE_NORMAL) {
> +		local_irq_save(flags);
> +		pcp = &this_cpu_ptr(zone->pageset)->pcp;
> +		page = __rmqueue_lockless(zone, pcp);
> +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +		if (page)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	return page;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Common helper functions. Never use with __GFP_HIGHMEM because the returned
>   * address cannot represent highmem pages. Use alloc_pages and then kmap if