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]

Message-ID: <CAKEwX=PF=a2+pUBM3xEHBMu6VJY2Q64eTmVwo7vb4YmJQpK_DA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:04:39 -0700
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Takero Funaki <flintglass@...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

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:58 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:36 PM Takero Funaki <flintglass@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I am not sure how often we'll run into a situation where we'll be
> holding the lock for too long tbh. It should be unlikely to keep
> encountering offline memcgs for a long time.
>
> Nhat, do you think this could cause a problem in practice?

I don't remember prescribing anything to be honest :) I think I was
just asking why can't we just drop the lock, then "continue;". This is
mostly for simplicity's sake.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAKEwX=MwrRc43iM2050v5u-TPUK4Yn+a4G7+h6ieKhpQ7WtQ=A@mail.gmail.com/

But I think as Takero pointed out, it would still skip over the memcg
that was (concurrently) updated to zswap_next_shrink by the memcg
offline callback.