| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <b4c08619-d365-bbaf-de08-9b2495a0a8d8@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:36:16 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
willy@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org, lkp@...el.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, richard.weiyang@...il.com,
kirill@...temov.name, alexander.duyck@...il.com,
rong.a.chen@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
shy828301@...il.com
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 14/19] mm/lru: introduce TestClearPageLRU
On 11/5/20 9:55 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> Currently lru_lock still guards both lru list and page's lru bit, that's
> ok. but if we want to use specific lruvec lock on the page, we need to
> pin down the page's lruvec/memcg during locking. Just taking lruvec
> lock first may be undermined by the page's memcg charge/migration. To
> fix this problem, we will clear the lru bit out of locking and use
> it as pin down action to block the page isolation in memcg changing.
>
> So now a standard steps of page isolation is following:
> 1, get_page(); #pin the page avoid to be free
> 2, TestClearPageLRU(); #block other isolation like memcg change
> 3, spin_lock on lru_lock; #serialize lru list access
> 4, delete page from lru list;
>
> This patch start with the first part: TestClearPageLRU, which combines
> PageLRU check and ClearPageLRU into a macro func TestClearPageLRU. This
> function will be used as page isolation precondition to prevent other
> isolations some where else. Then there are may !PageLRU page on lru
> list, need to remove BUG() checking accordingly.
As there now may be !PageLRU pages on lru list, we need to ...
>
> There 2 rules for lru bit now:
> 1, the lru bit still indicate if a page on lru list, just in some
> temporary moment(isolating), the page may have no lru bit when
> it's on lru list. but the page still must be on lru list when the
> lru bit set.
> 2, have to remove lru bit before delete it from lru list.
2. we have to remove the lru bit before deleting page from lru list
>
> As Andrew Morton mentioned this change would dirty cacheline for page
> isn't on LRU. But the lost would be acceptable in Rong Chen
> <rong.a.chen@...el.com> report:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200304090301.GB5972@shao2-debian/
AFAIK these places generally expect PageLRU to be true, and if it's false, it's
because of a race, so that effect should be negligible?
> Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
> ---
...
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1542,7 +1542,7 @@ unsigned int reclaim_clean_pages_from_list(struct zone *zone,
> */
> int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
> {
> - int ret = -EINVAL;
> + int ret = -EBUSY;
>
> /* Only take pages on the LRU. */
> if (!PageLRU(page))
> @@ -1552,8 +1552,6 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
> if (PageUnevictable(page) && !(mode & ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE))
> return ret;
>
> - ret = -EBUSY;
I'm not sure why this change is here, looks unrelated to the patch?
Oh I see, you want to prevent the BUG() in isolate_lru_pages().
But due to that, the PageUnevictable check was also affected unintentionally.
But I don't think it's that important to BUG() when we run into PageUnevictable
unexpectedly, so that's probably ok.
But with that, we can just make __isolate_lru_page() a bool function and remove
the ugly switch in isolate_lru_pages()?
> -
> /*
> * To minimise LRU disruption, the caller can indicate that it only
> * wants to isolate pages it will be able to operate on without
> @@ -1600,8 +1598,10 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
> * sure the page is not being freed elsewhere -- the
> * page release code relies on it.
> */
> - ClearPageLRU(page);
> - ret = 0;
> + if (TestClearPageLRU(page))
> + ret = 0;
> + else
> + put_page(page);
> }
>
> return ret;
> @@ -1667,8 +1667,6 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> page = lru_to_page(src);
> prefetchw_prev_lru_page(page, src, flags);
>
> - VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page);
> -
> nr_pages = compound_nr(page);
> total_scan += nr_pages;
>
> @@ -1765,21 +1763,18 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!page_count(page), page);
> WARN_RATELIMIT(PageTail(page), "trying to isolate tail page");
>
> - if (PageLRU(page)) {
> + if (TestClearPageLRU(page)) {
> pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
> struct lruvec *lruvec;
>
> - spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> + get_page(page);
> lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
> - if (PageLRU(page)) {
> - int lru = page_lru(page);
> - get_page(page);
> - ClearPageLRU(page);
> - del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
> - ret = 0;
> - }
> + spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> + del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page));
> spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> + ret = 0;
> }
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -4293,6 +4288,10 @@ void check_move_unevictable_pages(struct pagevec *pvec)
> nr_pages = thp_nr_pages(page);
> pgscanned += nr_pages;
>
> + /* block memcg migration during page moving between lru */
> + if (!TestClearPageLRU(page))
> + continue;
> +
> if (pagepgdat != pgdat) {
> if (pgdat)
> spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> @@ -4301,10 +4300,7 @@ void check_move_unevictable_pages(struct pagevec *pvec)
> }
> lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
>
> - if (!PageLRU(page) || !PageUnevictable(page))
> - continue;
> -
> - if (page_evictable(page)) {
> + if (page_evictable(page) && PageUnevictable(page)) {
Doing PageUnevictable() test first should be cheaper?
> enum lru_list lru = page_lru_base_type(page);
>
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageActive(page), page);
> @@ -4313,12 +4309,15 @@ void check_move_unevictable_pages(struct pagevec *pvec)
> add_page_to_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
> pgrescued += nr_pages;
> }
> + SetPageLRU(page);
> }
>
> if (pgdat) {
> __count_vm_events(UNEVICTABLE_PGRESCUED, pgrescued);
> __count_vm_events(UNEVICTABLE_PGSCANNED, pgscanned);
> spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> + } else if (pgscanned) {
> + count_vm_events(UNEVICTABLE_PGSCANNED, pgscanned);
> }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(check_move_unevictable_pages);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists