linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/memcg: set memcg when split page

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]

Message-ID: <20210318150206.GQ3420@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:02:06 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Zhou Guanghui <zhouguanghui1@...wei.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, ziy@...dia.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
        guohanjun@...wei.com, dingtianhong@...wei.com,
        chenweilong@...wei.com, rui.xiang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/memcg: set memcg when split page

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:05:00PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 11-03-21 12:37:20, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 11-03-21 10:21:39, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 09:37:02AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > Johannes, Hugh,
> > > > > 
> > > > > what do you think about this approach? If we want to stick with
> > > > > split_page approach then we need to update the missing place Matthew has
> > > > > pointed out.
> > > > 
> > > > I find the __free_pages() code quite tricky as well. But for that
> > > > reason I would actually prefer to initiate the splitting in there,
> > > > since that's the place where we actually split the page, rather than
> > > > spread the handling of this situation further out.
> > > > 
> > > > The race condition shouldn't be hot, so I don't think we need to be as
> > > > efficient about setting page->memcg_data only on the higher-order
> > > > buddies as in Willy's scratch patch. We can call split_page_memcg(),
> > > > which IMO should actually help document what's happening to the page.
> > > > 
> > > > I think that function could also benefit a bit more from step-by-step
> > > > documentation about what's going on. The kerneldoc is helpful, but I
> > > > don't think it does justice to how tricky this race condition is.
> > > > 
> > > > Something like this?
> > > > 
> > > > void __free_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> > > > {
> > > > 	/*
> > > > 	 * Drop the base reference from __alloc_pages and free. In
> > > > 	 * case there is an outstanding speculative reference, from
> > > > 	 * e.g. the page cache, it will put and free the page later.
> > > > 	 */
> > > > 	if (likely(put_page_testzero(page))) {
> > > > 		free_the_page(page, order);
> > > > 		return;
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > 	/*
> > > > 	 * The speculative reference will put and free the page.
> > > > 	 *
> > > > 	 * However, if the speculation was into a higher-order page
> > > > 	 * that isn't marked compound, the other side will know
> > > > 	 * nothing about our buddy pages and only free the order-0
> > > > 	 * page at the start of our chunk! We must split off and free
> > > > 	 * the buddy pages here.
> > > > 	 *
> > > > 	 * The buddy pages aren't individually refcounted, so they
> > > > 	 * can't have any pending speculative references themselves.
> > > > 	 */
> > > > 	if (!PageHead(page) && order > 0) {
> > > > 		split_page_memcg(page, 1 << order);
> > > > 		while (order-- > 0)
> > > > 			free_the_page(page + (1 << order), order);
> > > > 	}
> > > > }
> > > 
> > > Fine with me. Mathew was concerned about more places that do something
> > > similar but I would say that if we find out more places we might
> > > reconsider and currently stay with a reasonably clear model that it is
> > > only head patch that carries the memcg information and split_page_memcg
> > > is necessary to break such page into smaller pieces.
> > 
> > I agree: I do like Johannes' suggestion best, now that we already
> > have split_page_memcg().  Not too worried about contrived use of
> > free_unref_page() here; and whether non-compound high-order pages
> > should be perpetuated is a different discussion.
> 
> Matthew, are you planning to post a patch with suggested changes or
> should I do it?

I'm busy with the folio work; could you do it please?