linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm/list_lru: Fix possible race in memcg_reparent_list_lru

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: <CAMZfGtUfsGECdA8Nj=_xCurs3LgnB9ATc7J=dFA4_V_Zy-1FnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 12:30:19 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/list_lru: Fix possible race in memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:11 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:46:52 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu 31-03-22 06:39:56, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 07:48:45PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But honestly, I’d drop the original optimization together with
> > > > the fix, if only there is no _real world_ data on the problem and
> > > > the improvement. It seems like it has started as a nice simple
> > > > improvement, but the race makes it complex and probably not worth
> > > > the added complexity and fragility.
> > >
> > > I agree with dropping the original optimization as it is not really
> > > fixing an observed issue which may justify adding some complexity.
> >
> > Completely agreed. The patch as it is proposed is not really acceptable
> > IMHO and I have to say I am worried that this is not the first time we
> > are in a situation when a follow up fixes or unrelated patches are
> > growing in complexity to fit on top of a performance optimizations which
> > do not refer to any actual numbers.
>
> Yup.  I did this:
>
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Subject: mm/list_lru.c: revert "mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()"
>
> 405cc51fc1049c73 ("mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()")
> has subtle races which are proving ugly to fix.  Revert the original
> optimization.  If quantitative testing indicates that we have a
> significant problem here then other implementations can be looked at.
>
> Fixes: 405cc51fc1049c73 ("mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()")
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
> Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>

Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>