linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/13] mm: use add_page_to_lru

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, 18 Sep 2020 09:32:40 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] mm: use add_page_to_lru_list()

On Thu 17-09-20 21:00:39, Yu Zhao wrote:
> This patch replaces the only open-coded lru list addition with
> add_page_to_lru_list().
> 
> Before this patch, we have:
> 	update_lru_size()
> 	list_move()
> 
> After this patch, we have:
> 	list_del()
> 	add_page_to_lru_list()
> 		update_lru_size()
> 		list_add()
> 
> The only side effect is that page->lru is temporarily poisoned
> after a page is deleted from its old list, which shouldn't be a
> problem.

"because the lru lock is held" right?

Please always be explicit about your reasoning. "It shouldn't be a
problem" without further justification is just pointless for anybody
reading the code later on.
 
> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 9727dd8e2581..503fc5e1fe32 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1850,8 +1850,8 @@ static unsigned noinline_for_stack move_pages_to_lru(struct lruvec *lruvec,
>  	while (!list_empty(list)) {
>  		page = lru_to_page(list);
>  		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageLRU(page), page);
> +		list_del(&page->lru);
>  		if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page))) {
> -			list_del(&page->lru);
>  			spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>  			putback_lru_page(page);
>  			spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> @@ -1862,9 +1862,7 @@ static unsigned noinline_for_stack move_pages_to_lru(struct lruvec *lruvec,
>  		SetPageLRU(page);
>  		lru = page_lru(page);
>  
> -		nr_pages = thp_nr_pages(page);
> -		update_lru_size(lruvec, lru, page_zonenum(page), nr_pages);
> -		list_move(&page->lru, &lruvec->lists[lru]);
> +		add_page_to_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
>  
>  		if (put_page_testzero(page)) {
>  			__ClearPageLRU(page);
> @@ -1878,6 +1876,7 @@ static unsigned noinline_for_stack move_pages_to_lru(struct lruvec *lruvec,
>  			} else
>  				list_add(&page->lru, &pages_to_free);
>  		} else {
> +			nr_pages = thp_nr_pages(page);
>  			nr_moved += nr_pages;
>  			if (PageActive(page))
>  				workingset_age_nonresident(lruvec, nr_pages);
> -- 
> 2.28.0.681.g6f77f65b4e-goog

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs