[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF8kJuNq2Y5AAAQn66bTEfjkQ8kfPokmGgBLDPwEWUC=MO9NcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 14:14:56 -0700
From: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
david@...hat.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...gle.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] mm/page_alloc: free_pcppages_bulk safeguard
Hi Kemeng,
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 6:27 PM Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> >
> Agreed. We assume pcp->count is protected by pcp->lock. Instead of make code
> work in case pcp->count could be changed without lock held, it's more reasonble
> to modify pcp->count with pcp->lock held in BPF program.
The lock is holded when pcp->count is modified. It is going through
the kernel page
allocation API. The issue is nest memory allocation inside spin_lock()
introduced by BPF.
The execution sequence is like this:
count = min(pcp->count, count);
/* Ensure requested pindex is drained first. */
pindex = pindex - 1;
bpf_injected_spin_lock_irqsave {
alloc_page();
original spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags) ;
}
Chris
Chris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists