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:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:56:36 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] mm: Split move_pages_to_lru into 3 separate
 passes



在 2020/8/19 下午10:42, Alexander Duyck 写道:
>> It's actually changed the meaning from current func. which I had seen a bug if no relock.
>> but after move to 5.9 kernel, I can not reprodce the bug any more. I am not sure if 5.9 fixed
>> the problem, and we don't need relock here.
> So I am not sure what you mean here about "changed the meaning from
> the current func". Which function are you referring to and what
> changed?
> 
> From what I can tell the pages cannot change memcg because they were
> isolated and had the LRU flag stripped. They shouldn't be able to
> change destination LRU vector as a result. Assuming that, then they
> can all be processed under same LRU lock and we can avoid having to
> release it until we are forced to do so to call putback_lru_page or
> destroy the compound pages that were freed while we were shrinking the
> LRU lists.
> 

I had sent a bug which base on 5.8 kernel.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/28/465

I am not sure it was fixed in new kernel. The original line was introduced by Hugh Dickins
I believe it would be great if you can get comments from him.

Thanks
Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ