| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YibSe/txAsubzqUw@ip-172-31-19-208.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 03:50:19 +0000
From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Matthew WilCox <willy@...radead.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm/slub: refactor deactivate_slab()
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 09:40:07AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:41 PM Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Simplify deactivate_slab() by unlocking n->list_lock and retrying
> > cmpxchg_double() when cmpxchg_double() fails, and perform
> > add_{partial,full} only when it succeed.
> >
> > Releasing and taking n->list_lock again here is not harmful as SLUB
> > avoids deactivating slabs as much as possible.
> >
> > [ vbabka@...e.cz: perform add_{partial,full} when cmpxchg_double()
> > succeed.
> >
> > count deactivating full slabs even if debugging flag is not set. ]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
> > ---
> > mm/slub.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 1ce09b0347ad..f0cb9d0443ac 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2348,10 +2348,10 @@ static void init_kmem_cache_cpus(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
> > void *freelist)
> > {
> > - enum slab_modes { M_NONE, M_PARTIAL, M_FULL, M_FREE };
> > + enum slab_modes { M_NONE, M_PARTIAL, M_FULL, M_FREE, M_FULL_NOLIST };
> > struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
> > - int lock = 0, free_delta = 0;
> > - enum slab_modes l = M_NONE, m = M_NONE;
> > + int free_delta = 0;
> > + enum slab_modes mode = M_NONE;
> > void *nextfree, *freelist_iter, *freelist_tail;
> > int tail = DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD;
> > unsigned long flags = 0;
> > @@ -2393,14 +2393,10 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
> > * Ensure that the slab is unfrozen while the list presence
> > * reflects the actual number of objects during unfreeze.
> > *
> > - * We setup the list membership and then perform a cmpxchg
> > - * with the count. If there is a mismatch then the slab
> > - * is not unfrozen but the slab is on the wrong list.
> > - *
> > - * Then we restart the process which may have to remove
> > - * the slab from the list that we just put it on again
> > - * because the number of objects in the slab may have
> > - * changed.
> > + * We first perform cmpxchg holding lock and insert to list
> > + * when it succeed. If there is mismatch then the slab is not
> > + * unfrozen and number of objects in the slab may have changed.
> > + * Then release lock and retry cmpxchg again.
> > */
> > redo:
> >
> > @@ -2420,61 +2416,50 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
> > new.frozen = 0;
> >
> > if (!new.inuse && n->nr_partial >= s->min_partial)
> > - m = M_FREE;
> > + mode = M_FREE;
> > else if (new.freelist) {
> > - m = M_PARTIAL;
> > - if (!lock) {
> > - lock = 1;
> > - /*
> > - * Taking the spinlock removes the possibility that
> > - * acquire_slab() will see a slab that is frozen
> > - */
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > - }
> > - } else {
> > - m = M_FULL;
> > - if (kmem_cache_debug_flags(s, SLAB_STORE_USER) && !lock) {
> > - lock = 1;
> > - /*
> > - * This also ensures that the scanning of full
> > - * slabs from diagnostic functions will not see
> > - * any frozen slabs.
> > - */
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > - }
> > - }
> > -
> > - if (l != m) {
> > - if (l == M_PARTIAL)
> > - remove_partial(n, slab);
> > - else if (l == M_FULL)
> > - remove_full(s, n, slab);
> > + mode = M_PARTIAL;
> > + /*
> > + * Taking the spinlock removes the possibility that
> > + * acquire_slab() will see a slab that is frozen
> > + */
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > + } else if (kmem_cache_debug_flags(s, SLAB_STORE_USER)) {
> > + mode = M_FULL;
> > + /*
> > + * This also ensures that the scanning of full
> > + * slabs from diagnostic functions will not see
> > + * any frozen slabs.
> > + */
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > + } else
> > + mode = M_FULL_NOLIST;
> >
> > - if (m == M_PARTIAL)
> > - add_partial(n, slab, tail);
> > - else if (m == M_FULL)
i> > - add_full(s, n, slab);
> > - }
> >
> > - l = m;
> > if (!cmpxchg_double_slab(s, slab,
> > old.freelist, old.counters,
> > new.freelist, new.counters,
> > - "unfreezing slab"))
> > + "unfreezing slab")) {
> > + if (mode == M_PARTIAL || mode == M_FULL)
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>
> The slab doesn't belong to any node here, should we remove locking/unlocking
> spin for cmpxchg_double_slab() call? Just calling spin_lock_irqsave() before
> add_partial()/add_full call is fine?
>
I thought about that, and tested, but that is not okay.
taking spinlock around cmpxchg prevents race between __slab_free() and
deactivate_slab(). list can be corrupted without spinlock.
think about case below: (when SLAB_STORE_USER is set)
__slab_free() deactivate_slab()
================= =================
(deactivating full slab)
cmpxchg_double()
spin_lock_irqsave()
cmpxchg_double()
/* not in full list yet */
remove_full()
add_partial()
spin_unlock_irqrestore()
spin_lock_irqsave()
add_full()
spin_unlock_irqrestore()
> > goto redo;
>
> How about do {...} while(!cmpxchg_double_slab())? The readability looks better?
>
This will be:
do {
if (mode == M_PARTIAL || mode == M_FULL)
spin_unlock_irqrestore();
[...]
} while (!cmpxchg_double_slab());
I think goto version is better for reading?
Thanks!
> Regards,
> Xiongwei
>
> > + }
> >
> > - if (lock)
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> >
> > - if (m == M_PARTIAL)
> > + if (mode == M_PARTIAL) {
> > + add_partial(n, slab, tail);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > stat(s, tail);
> > - else if (m == M_FULL)
> > - stat(s, DEACTIVATE_FULL);
> > - else if (m == M_FREE) {
> > + } else if (mode == M_FREE) {
> > stat(s, DEACTIVATE_EMPTY);
> > discard_slab(s, slab);
> > stat(s, FREE_SLAB);
> > - }
> > + } else if (mode == M_FULL) {
> > + add_full(s, n, slab);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);y
> > + stat(s, DEACTIVATE_FULL);
> > + } else if (mode == M_FULL_NOLIST)
> > + stat(s, DEACTIVATE_FULL);
> > }
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL
> > --
> > 2.33.1
> >
> >
--
Thank you, You are awesome!
Hyeonggon :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists