linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm: Drop use of test_and_set

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:50:25 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, lkp@...el.com, rong.a.chen@...el.com,
        khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, kirill@...temov.name, hughd@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, shakeelb@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, tj@...nel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, richard.weiyang@...il.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm: Drop use of test_and_set_skip in favor of
 just setting skip



在 2020/8/13 下午12:02, Alexander Duyck 写道:
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> The only user of test_and_set_skip was isolate_migratepages_block and it
> was using it after a call that was testing and clearing the LRU flag. As
> such it really didn't need to be behind the LRU lock anymore as it wasn't
> really fulfilling its purpose.
> 
> With that being the case we can simply drop the bit and instead directly
> just call the set_pageblock_skip function if the page we are working on is
> the valid_page at the start of the pageblock. It shouldn't be possible for
> us to encounter the bit being set since we obtained the LRU flag for the
> first page in the pageblock which means we would have exclusive access to
> setting the skip bit. As such we don't need to worry about the abort case
> since no other thread will be able to call what used to be
> test_and_set_skip.
> 
> Since we have dropped the late abort case we can drop the code that was
> clearing the LRU flag and calling page_put since the abort case will now
> not be holding a reference to a page.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>

After my false sharing remove on pageblock_flags, this patch looks fine with
a minor change

> ---
>  mm/compaction.c |   50 +++++++-------------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index 5021a18ef722..c1e9918f9dd4 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -399,29 +399,6 @@ void reset_isolation_suitable(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * Sets the pageblock skip bit if it was clear. Note that this is a hint as
> - * locks are not required for read/writers. Returns true if it was already set.
> - */
> -static bool test_and_set_skip(struct compact_control *cc, struct page *page,
> -							unsigned long pfn)
> -{
> -	bool skip;
> -
> -	/* Do no update if skip hint is being ignored */
> -	if (cc->ignore_skip_hint)
> -		return false;
> -
> -	if (!IS_ALIGNED(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))
> -		return false;
> -
> -	skip = get_pageblock_skip(page);
> -	if (!skip && !cc->no_set_skip_hint)
> -		skip = !set_pageblock_skip(page);
> -
> -	return skip;
> -}
> -
>  static void update_cached_migrate(struct compact_control *cc, unsigned long pfn)
>  {
>  	struct zone *zone = cc->zone;
> @@ -480,12 +457,6 @@ static inline void update_pageblock_skip(struct compact_control *cc,
>  static void update_cached_migrate(struct compact_control *cc, unsigned long pfn)
>  {
>  }
> -
> -static bool test_and_set_skip(struct compact_control *cc, struct page *page,
> -							unsigned long pfn)
> -{
> -	return false;
> -}
>  #endif /* CONFIG_COMPACTION */
>  
>  /*
> @@ -895,7 +866,6 @@ static bool too_many_isolated(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>  		if (!valid_page && IS_ALIGNED(low_pfn, pageblock_nr_pages)) {
>  			if (!cc->ignore_skip_hint && get_pageblock_skip(page)) {
>  				low_pfn = end_pfn;
> -				page = NULL;
>  				goto isolate_abort;
>  			}
>  			valid_page = page;
> @@ -991,6 +961,13 @@ static bool too_many_isolated(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>  		if (!TestClearPageLRU(page))
>  			goto isolate_fail_put;
>  
> +		/* Indicate that we want exclusive access to this pageblock */
> +		if (page == valid_page) {
> +			skip_updated = true;
> +			if (!cc->ignore_skip_hint)

                        if (!cc->ignore_skip_hint && !cc->no_set_skip_hint)
no_set_skip_hint needs to add here.

Thanks
Alex

> +				set_pageblock_skip(page);
> +		}
> +
>  		/* If we already hold the lock, we can skip some rechecking */
>  		if (!lruvec || !lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(page, lruvec)) {
>  			if (lruvec)
> @@ -1002,13 +979,6 @@ static bool too_many_isolated(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>  
>  			lruvec_memcg_debug(lruvec, page);
>  
> -			/* Try get exclusive access under lock */
> -			if (!skip_updated) {
> -				skip_updated = true;
> -				if (test_and_set_skip(cc, page, low_pfn))
> -					goto isolate_abort;
> -			}
> -
>  			/*
>  			 * Page become compound since the non-locked check,
>  			 * and it's on LRU. It can only be a THP so the order
> @@ -1094,15 +1064,9 @@ static bool too_many_isolated(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>  	if (unlikely(low_pfn > end_pfn))
>  		low_pfn = end_pfn;
>  
> -	page = NULL;
> -
>  isolate_abort:
>  	if (lruvec)
>  		unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec, flags);
> -	if (page) {
> -		SetPageLRU(page);
> -		put_page(page);
> -	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Updated the cached scanner pfn once the pageblock has been scanned
>