linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/ttm: optimize the pool shrinker a bit v2

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:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:08:51 +0200
From:   Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, vbabka@...e.cz, daniel@...ll.ch,
        ray.huang@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/ttm: optimize the pool shrinker a bit v2

Am 15.04.21 um 22:33 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:56:24 +0200 "Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> @@ -530,6 +525,11 @@ void ttm_pool_fini(struct ttm_pool *pool)
>>   			for (j = 0; j < MAX_ORDER; ++j)
>>   				ttm_pool_type_fini(&pool->caching[i].orders[j]);
>>   	}
>> +
>> +	/* We removed the pool types from the LRU, but we need to also make sure
>> +	 * that no shrinker is concurrently freeing pages from the pool.
>> +	 */
>> +	sync_shrinkers();
> It isn't immediately clear to me how this works.  ttm_pool_fini() has
> already freed all the pages hasn't it?  So why would it care if some
> shrinkers are still playing with the pages?

Yes ttm_pool_fini() has freed up all pages which had been in the pool 
when the function was called.

But the problem is it is possible that a parallel running shrinker has 
taken a page from the pool and is in the process of freeing it up.

When I return here the pool structure and especially the device 
structure are freed while the parallel running shrinker is still using them.

I could go for a design where we have one shrinker per device instead, 
but that would put a bit to much pressure on the pool in my opinion.

> Or is it the case that ttm_pool_fini() is assuming that there will be
> some further action against these pages, which requires that shrinkers
> no longer be accessing the pages and which further assumes that future
> shrinker invocations will not be able to look up these pages?
>
> IOW, a bit more explanation about the dynamics here would help!

Sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English and sometimes still have a 
hard time explaining things.

Regards,
Christian.