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:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:58:24 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] mm/page_alloc: place pages to tail in
 __free_pages_core()

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 08:34:11PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> @@ -1523,7 +1524,13 @@ void __free_pages_core(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
>  
>  	atomic_long_add(nr_pages, &page_zone(page)->managed_pages);
>  	set_page_refcounted(page);
> -	__free_pages(page, order);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Bypass PCP and place fresh pages right to the tail, primarily
> +	 * relevant for memory onlining.
> +	 */
> +	page_ref_dec(page);
> +	__free_pages_ok(page, order, FOP_TO_TAIL);

Sorry, I must be missing something obvious here, but I am a bit confused here.
I get the part of placing them at the tail so rmqueue_bulk() won't
find them, but I do not get why we decrement page's refcount.
IIUC, its refcount will be 0, but why do we want to do that?

Another thing a bit unrelated... we mess three times with page's refcount
(two before this patch).
Why do we have this dance in place?

Thanks

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ