linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_alloc: add scheduling point to free_unref_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: <3713cb82-9596-9916-9830-c2827d6a6fe4@loongson.cn>
Date:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:48:41 +0800
From:   wangjianxing <wangjianxing@...ngson.cn>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vbabka@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_alloc: add scheduling point to
 free_unref_page_list

spin_lock will preempt_disable(), interrupt context will 
__irq_enter/local_bh_disable and also add preempt count with offset.

cond_resched check whether if preempt_count == 0 in first and won't 
schedule in previous context.

Is this right?


With another way, could we add some condition to avoid call cond_resched 
in interrupt context or spin_lock()?

+ if (preemptible())
+       cond_resched();

On 03/10/2022 09:05 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 16:19:33 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 08:38:25PM -0500, wangjianxing wrote:
>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> index 3589febc6..1b96421c8 100644
>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -3479,6 +3479,9 @@ void free_unref_page_list(struct list_head *list)
>>>   		 */
>>>   		if (++batch_count == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
>>>   			local_unlock_irqrestore(&pagesets.lock, flags);
>>> +
>>> +			cond_resched();
>> This isn't safe.  This path can be called from interrupt context
>> (otherwise we'd be using local_unlock_irq() instead of irqrestore()).
> What a shame it is that we don't document our interfaces :(
>
> I can't immediately find such callers, but I could imagine
> put_pages_list() (which didn't document its interface this way either)
> being called from IRQ.
>
> And drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c:fq_ring_free() calls put_pages_list()
> from inside spin_lock().