linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] [RFC] mm: fs: Invalidate BH LRU during page migration

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, 11 Feb 2021 14:09:50 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [RFC] mm: fs: Invalidate BH LRU during page migration

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:35:40PM -0800, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
> +/* These are used to control the BH LRU invalidation during page migration */
> +static struct cpumask lru_needs_invalidation;
> +static bool bh_lru_disabled = false;

As I asked before, what protects this on an SMP system?

> @@ -1292,7 +1296,9 @@ static inline void check_irqs_on(void)
>  /*
>   * Install a buffer_head into this cpu's LRU.  If not already in the LRU, it is
>   * inserted at the front, and the buffer_head at the back if any is evicted.
> - * Or, if already in the LRU it is moved to the front.
> + * Or, if already in the LRU it is moved to the front. Note that if LRU is
> + * disabled because of an ongoing page migration, we won't insert bh into the
> + * LRU.

And also, why do we need to do this?  The page LRU has no equivalent
mechanism to prevent new pages being added to the per-CPU LRU lists.
If a BH has just been used, isn't that a strong hint that this page is
a bad candidate for migration?