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:   Tue, 2 Feb 2021 16:43:14 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] mm/numa: automatically generate node migration
 order

On 2/2/21 9:46 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:13 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 1/29/21 12:46 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>> ...
>>>>  int next_demotion_node(int node)
>>>>  {
>>>> -       return node_demotion[node];
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * node_demotion[] is updated without excluding
>>>> +        * this function from running.  READ_ONCE() avoids
>>>> +        * reading multiple, inconsistent 'node' values
>>>> +        * during an update.
>>>> +        */
>>> Don't we need a smp_rmb() here? The single write barrier might be not
>>> enough in migration target set. Typically a write barrier should be
>>> used in pairs with a read barrier.
>> I don't think we need one, practically.
>>
>> Since there is no locking against node_demotion[] updates, although a
>> smp_rmb() would ensure that this read is up-to-date, it could change
>> freely after the smp_rmb().
> Yes, but this should be able to guarantee we see "disable + after"
> state. Isn't it more preferred?

I'm debating how much of this is theoretical versus actually applicable
to what we have in the kernel.  But, I'm generally worried about code
like this that *looks* innocuous:

	int terminal_node = start_node;
	int next_node = next_demotion_node(start_node);
        while (next_node != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
		next_node = terminal_node;
                terminal_node = next_demotion_node(terminal_node);
        }

That could loop forever if it doesn't go out to memory during each loop.

However, if node_demotion[] *is* read on every trip through the loop, it
will eventually terminate.  READ_ONCE() can guarantee that, as could
compiler barriers like smp_rmb().

But, after staring at it for a while, I think RCU may be the most
clearly correct way to solve the problem.  Or, maybe just throw in the
towel and do a spinlock like a normal human being. :)

Anyway, here's what I was thinking I'd do with RCU:

 1. node_demotion[] starts off in a "before" state
 2. Writers to node_demotion[] first set the whole array such that
    it will not induce cycles, like setting every member to
    NUMA_NO_NODE. (the "disable" state)
 3. Writer calls synchronize_rcu().  After it returns, no readers can
    observe the "before" values.
 4. Writer sets the actual values it wants.  (the "after" state)
 5. Readers use rcu_read_lock() over any critical section where they
    read the array.  They are guaranteed to only see one of the two
    adjacent states (before+disabled, or disabled+after), but never
    before+after within one RCU read-side critical section.
 6. Readers use READ_ONCE() or some other compiler directive to ensure
    the compiler does not reorder or combine reads from multiple,
    adjacent RCU read-side critical sections.

Although, after writing this, plain old locks are sounding awfully tempting.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists