linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm/mempolicy: change cur_il_weight to atomic and carry the node with it

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: <ZbhuJTBp68e8eLRv@memverge.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:33:57 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, honggyu.kim@...com,
	rakie.kim@...com, hyeongtak.ji@...com, mhocko@...nel.org,
	vtavarespetr@...ron.com, jgroves@...ron.com,
	ravis.opensrc@...ron.com, sthanneeru@...ron.com,
	emirakhur@...ron.com, Hasan.Maruf@....com, seungjun.ha@...sung.com,
	hannes@...xchg.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm/mempolicy: change cur_il_weight to atomic and
 carry the node with it

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:15:35AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:48:47AM -0500, Gregory Price wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:17:46PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> > Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com> writes:
> >> > 
> >> > But, in contrast, it's bad to put task-local "current weight" in
> >> > mempolicy.  So, I think that it's better to move cur_il_weight to
> >> > task_struct.  And maybe combine it with current->il_prev.
> >> > 
> >> Style question: is it preferable add an anonymous union into task_struct:
> >> 
> >> union {
> >>     short il_prev;
> >>     atomic_t wil_node_weight;
> >> };
> >> 
> >> Or should I break out that union explicitly in mempolicy.h?
> >> 
> >
> > Having attempted this, it looks like including mempolicy.h into sched.h
> > is a non-starter.  There are build issues likely associated from the
> > nested include of uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
> >
> > So I went ahead and did the following.  Style-wise If it's better to just
> > integrate this as an anonymous union in task_struct, let me know, but it
> > seemed better to add some documentation here.
> >
> > I also added static get/set functions to mempolicy.c to touch these
> > values accordingly.
> >
> > As suggested, I changed things to allow 0-weight in il_prev.node_weight
> > adjusted the logic accordingly. Will be testing this for a day or so
> > before sending out new patches.
> >
> 
> Thanks about this again.  It seems that we don't need to touch
> task->il_prev and task->il_weight during rebinding for weighted
> interleave too.
> 

It's not clear to me this is the case.  cpusets takes the task_lock to
change mems_allowed and rebind task->mempolicy, but I do not see the
task lock access blocking allocations.

Comments from cpusets suggest allocations can happen in parallel.

/*
 * cpuset_change_task_nodemask - change task's mems_allowed and mempolicy
 * @tsk: the task to change
 * @newmems: new nodes that the task will be set
 *
 * We use the mems_allowed_seq seqlock to safely update both tsk->mems_allowed
 * and rebind an eventual tasks' mempolicy. If the task is allocating in
 * parallel, it might temporarily see an empty intersection, which results in
 * a seqlock check and retry before OOM or allocation failure.
 */


For normal interleave, this isn't an issue because it always proceeds to
the next node. The same is not true of weighted interleave, which may
have a hanging weight in task->il_weight.

That is why I looked to combine the two, so at least node/weight were
carried together.

> unsigned int weighted_interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
> {
>         unsigned int nid;
>         struct task_struct *me = current;
> 
>         nid = me->il_prev;
>         if (!me->il_weight || !node_isset(nid, policy->nodes)) {
>                 nid = next_node_in(...);
>                 me->il_prev = nid;
>                 me->il_weight = weights[nid];
>         }
>         me->il_weight--;
> 
>         return nid;
> }

I ended up with this:

static unsigned int weighted_interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
{
       unsigned int node;
       u8 weight;

       get_wil_prev(&node, &weight);
       /* If nodemask was rebound, just fetch the next node */
       if (!weight) {
               node = next_node_in(node, policy->nodes);
               /* can only happen if nodemask has become invalid */
               if (node == MAX_NUMNODES)
                       return node;
               weight = get_il_weight(node);
       }
       weight--;
       set_wil_prev(node, weight);
       return node;
}

~Gregory