linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 21:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:     Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@...il.com>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit,
 amount)

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> 
> Sorry for the late chime in. I'm traveling right now.

No problem at all, thanks for looking.

> 
> I haven't been super happy lately with percpu_counter as it has had a
> few corner cases such as the cpu_dying_mask fiasco which I thought we
> fixed with a series from tglx [1]. If not I can resurrect it and pull
> it.
> 
> I feel like percpu_counter is deviating from its original intended
> usecase which, from my perspective, was a thin wrapper around a percpu
> variable. At this point we seem to be bolting onto percpu_counter
> instead of giving it a clear focus for what it's supposed to do well.
> I think I understand the use case, and ultimately it's kind of the
> duality where I think it was xfs is using percpu_counters where it must
> be > 0 for the value to make sense and there was a race condition with
> cpu dying [2].
> 
> At this point, I think it's probably better to wholy think about the
> lower bound and upper bound problem of percpu_counter wrt the # of
> online cpus.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dennis
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230414162755.281993820@linutronix.de/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230406015629.1804722-1-yebin@huaweicloud.com/

Thanks for the links.  I can see that the current cpu_dying situation
is not ideal, but don't see any need to get any deeper into that for
percpu_counter_limited_add(): I did consider an update to remove its
use of cpu_dying_mask, but that just seemed wrong - it should do the
same as is currently done in __percpu_counter_sum(), then be updated
along with that when cpu_dying is sorted, by tglx's series or otherwise.

I don't think I agree with you about percpu_counter deviating from its
original intended usecase; but I haven't studied the history to see what
that initial usecase was.  Whatever, we've had percpu_counter_add() and
percpu_counter_compare() for many years, and percpu_counter_limited_add()
is just an atomic combination of those: I don't see it as deviating at all.

Hugh