linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: mask DIRECT

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: <CAGWkznGP1_Ycin+KRsY44XesFDuvZA9rCFnc6pd9VJf-AMj9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 10:07:33 +0800
From:   Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mask DIRECT_RECLAIM in kswapd

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:23 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon,  6 Dec 2021 11:19:22 +0800 Huangzhaoyang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> >
> > As the eg bellowing, using GFP_KERNEL could confuse the registered .releasepage
> > or .shrinker functions when called in kswapd and have them acting wrongly.Mask
> > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM in kswapd.
> >
> > eg,
> > kswapd
> >   shrink_page_list
> >     try_to_release_page
> >       __fscache_maybe_release_page
> >       ...
> >          if (!(gfp & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) || !(gfp & __GFP_FS)) {
> >                  fscache_stat(&fscache_n_store_vmscan_busy);
> >                  return false;
> >          }
>
> Well, we have thus far been permitting kswapd's memory allocations to
> enter direct reclaim.  Forbidding that kernel-wide might be the right
> thing to do, or might not be.  But disabling it kernel-wide because of
> a peculiar hack in fscache is not good justification.
By checking the whole path of kswapd reclaiming, I don't find any
steps need __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM but the hooked slab shrinker and fs's
releasepage functions. It doesn't make sense for kswapd be aware of
there is a concurrent direct reclaim.

>
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -4083,7 +4083,7 @@ static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int highest_zoneidx)
> >       bool boosted;
> >       struct zone *zone;
> >       struct scan_control sc = {
> > -             .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL,
> > +             .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM,
> >               .order = order,
> >               .may_unmap = 1,
> >       };
>
> Maybe hack the hack like this?
>
> --- a/fs/fscache/page.c~a
> +++ a/fs/fscache/page.c
> @@ -126,8 +126,10 @@ page_busy:
>          * sleeping on memory allocation, so we may need to impose a timeout
>          * too. */
>         if (!(gfp & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) || !(gfp & __GFP_FS)) {
> -               fscache_stat(&fscache_n_store_vmscan_busy);
> -               return false;
> +               if (!current_is_kswapd()) {
> +                       fscache_stat(&fscache_n_store_vmscan_busy);
> +                       return false;
> +               }
>         }
>
>         fscache_stat(&fscache_n_store_vmscan_wait);
This method works. However, there are several other hook functions as
below using this flag for judging the context. IMHO,
__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM just only takes affection for two points. Have
page_alloc_slow_path judging if enter direct_reclaim and the reclaimer
tell the context.

eg.
 xfs_qm_shrink_scan(
...
        if ((sc->gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)) !=
(__GFP_FS|__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
                 return 0;

 static int ceph_releasepage(struct page *page, gfp_t gfp)
...
          if (PageFsCache(page)) {
                  if (!(gfp & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) || !(gfp & __GFP_FS))
                          return 0;

static int afs_releasepage(struct page *page, gfp_t gfp_flags)
...
         if (PageFsCache(page)) {
                 if (!(gfp_flags & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) ||
!(gfp_flags & __GFP_FS))
                         return false;


> _
>
> But please, do cc the fscache mailing list and maintainer when mucking
> with these things.