linux-kernel - [PATCH v4 11/35] mm, slub: simplify kmem_cache

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: <20210805152000.12817-12-vbabka@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu,  5 Aug 2021 17:19:36 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: [PATCH v4 11/35] mm, slub: simplify kmem_cache_cpu and tid setup

In slab_alloc_node() and do_slab_free() fastpaths we need to guarantee that
our kmem_cache_cpu pointer is from the same cpu as the tid value. Currently
that's done by reading the tid first using this_cpu_read(), then the
kmem_cache_cpu pointer and verifying we read the same tid using the pointer and
plain READ_ONCE().

This can be simplified to just fetching kmem_cache_cpu pointer and then reading
tid using the pointer. That guarantees they are from the same cpu. We don't
need to read the tid using this_cpu_read() because the value will be validated
by this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(), making sure we are on the correct cpu and the
freelist didn't change by anyone preempting us since reading the tid.

Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
---
 mm/slub.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index c32048353645..e2d803b7e3b5 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -2865,15 +2865,14 @@ static __always_inline void *slab_alloc_node(struct kmem_cache *s,
 	 * reading from one cpu area. That does not matter as long
 	 * as we end up on the original cpu again when doing the cmpxchg.
 	 *
-	 * We should guarantee that tid and kmem_cache are retrieved on
-	 * the same cpu. It could be different if CONFIG_PREEMPTION so we need
-	 * to check if it is matched or not.
+	 * We must guarantee that tid and kmem_cache_cpu are retrieved on the
+	 * same cpu. We read first the kmem_cache_cpu pointer and use it to read
+	 * the tid. If we are preempted and switched to another cpu between the
+	 * two reads, it's OK as the two are still associated with the same cpu
+	 * and cmpxchg later will validate the cpu.
 	 */
-	do {
-		tid = this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid);
-		c = raw_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
-	} while (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPTION) &&
-		 unlikely(tid != READ_ONCE(c->tid)));
+	c = raw_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
+	tid = READ_ONCE(c->tid);
 
 	/*
 	 * Irqless object alloc/free algorithm used here depends on sequence
@@ -3147,11 +3146,8 @@ static __always_inline void do_slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s,
 	 * data is retrieved via this pointer. If we are on the same cpu
 	 * during the cmpxchg then the free will succeed.
 	 */
-	do {
-		tid = this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid);
-		c = raw_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
-	} while (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPTION) &&
-		 unlikely(tid != READ_ONCE(c->tid)));
+	c = raw_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
+	tid = READ_ONCE(c->tid);
 
 	/* Same with comment on barrier() in slab_alloc_node() */
 	barrier();
-- 
2.32.0