linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/24] mm/swap: avoid setting page lock bit and doing extra unlock check

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: <CAMgjq7Bax-EOiXXDRxpHFoyrQWRQdSWbZ0KN7-W8YsocV5C97w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Nov 2023 16:14:41 +0800
From:   Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
To:     Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/24] mm/swap: avoid setting page lock bit and doing
 extra unlock check

Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org> 于2023年11月23日周四 04:57写道：
>
> Hi Kairui,
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:33 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are two different charges. Memcg charging and memcg swapin charging.
> > > The folio_put will do the memcg discharge, the corresponding memcg
> > > charge is in follio allocation.
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I didn't get your idea here... By "memcg swapin charge", do you mean
> > "memory.swap.*"? And "memcg charging" means "memory.*"?. There is no
>
> Sorry I should have used the function name then there is no ambiguity.
> "memcg swapin charge" I mean function mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio().
> This function will look up the swap entry and find the memcg by swap entry then
> charge to that memcg.
>
> > memcg charge related code in folio allocation (alloc_pages_mpol),
> > actually the mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio here is doing memcg charge
> > not memcg swapin charge. Swapin path actually need to uncharge
> > "memory.swap" by mem_cgroup_swapin_uncharge_swap in later part of this
> > function.
>
> I still think you have a bug there.
>
> Take this make up example:
> Let say the for loop runs 3 times and the 3rd time breaks out the for loop.
> The original code will call:
> filemap_get_folio() 3 times
> folio_put() 2 times
> mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio() 1 time.
>
> With your patch, it will call:
> filemap_get_folio() 3 times
> folio_put() 2 times
> mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio() 3 times.
>
> Do you see the behavior difference there?

Hi Chris.

folio_put will discharge a page if it's charged, in original code the
2 folio_put call simply free the page since it's not charged. But in
this patch, folio_put will cancel previous
mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio call, so actually the 3
mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio calls will only charge once. (2 calls
was cancelled by folio_put).

I think this is making it confusing indeed and causing more trouble in
error path (the uncharge could be more expensive than unlock check),
will rework this part.