linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mm: zswap: fix global shrinker memcg iteration

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: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:35:56 +0900
From: Takero Funaki <flintglass@...il.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Domenico Cerasuolo <cerasuolodomenico@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mm: zswap: fix global shrinker memcg iteration

2024年6月13日(木) 11:18 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>:

> > The corrected version of the cleaner should be:
> > ```c
> > void zswap_memcg_offline_cleanup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > {
> >         /* lock out zswap shrinker walking memcg tree */
> >         spin_lock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> >         if (zswap_next_shrink == memcg) {
> >                 do {
> >                         zswap_next_shrink = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL,
> >                                         zswap_next_shrink, NULL);
> >                         spin_unlock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> >                         spin_lock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> >                         if (!zswap_next_shrink)
> >                                 break;
> >                 } while (!mem_cgroup_online(zswap_next_shrink));
> >         }
> >         spin_unlock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> > }
> > ```
>
> Is the idea here to avoid moving the iterator to another offline memcg
> that zswap_memcg_offline_cleanup() was already called for, to avoid
> holding a ref on that memcg until the next run of zswap shrinking?
>
> If yes, I think it's probably worth doing. But why do we need to
> release and reacquire the lock in the loop above?

Yes, the existing cleaner might leave the offline, already-cleaned memcg.

The reacquiring lock is to not loop inside the critical section.
In shrink_worker of v0 patch, the loop was restarted on offline memcg
without releasing the lock. Nhat pointed out that we should drop the
lock after every mem_cgroup_iter() call. v1 was changed to reacquire
once per iteration like the cleaner code above.