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: <CAGsJ_4zn46WWmhjsTGES1hH9Un65BiNn+KLUfvE_Espnf0tw9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:56:10 +1200
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 5/5] mm/swap: remove boilerplate

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:48 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:15 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Remove boilerplate by using a macro to choose the corresponding lock
> > and handler for each folio_batch in cpu_fbatches.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/swap.c | 107 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > index 4a66d2f87f26..342ff4e39ba4 100644
> > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > @@ -220,16 +220,45 @@ static void folio_batch_move_lru(struct folio_batch *fbatch, move_fn_t move_fn)
> >         folios_put(fbatch);
> >  }
> >
> > -static void folio_batch_add_and_move(struct folio_batch *fbatch,
> > -               struct folio *folio, move_fn_t move_fn)
> > +static void __folio_batch_add_and_move(struct folio_batch *fbatch,
> > +               struct folio *folio, move_fn_t move_fn,
> > +               bool on_lru, bool disable_irq)
> >  {
> > +       unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +       folio_get(folio);
> > +
> > +       if (on_lru && !folio_test_clear_lru(folio)) {
> > +               folio_put(folio);
> > +               return;
> > +       }
> > +
> >         if (folio_batch_add(fbatch, folio) && !folio_test_large(folio) &&
> >             !lru_cache_disabled())
> >                 return;
> >
> > +       if (disable_irq)
> > +               local_lock_irqsave(&cpu_fbatches.lock_irq, flags);
> > +       else
> > +               local_lock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > +
> >         folio_batch_move_lru(fbatch, move_fn);
> > +
> > +       if (disable_irq)
> > +               local_unlock_irqrestore(&cpu_fbatches.lock_irq, flags);
> > +       else
> > +               local_unlock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> >  }
> >
> > +#define folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, op, on_lru)                                            \
> > +       __folio_batch_add_and_move(                                                             \
> > +               this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.op),                                                 \
> > +               folio,                                                                          \
> > +               op,                                                                             \
> > +               on_lru,                                                                         \
> > +               offsetof(struct cpu_fbatches, op) > offsetof(struct cpu_fbatches, lock_irq)     \
> > +       )
>
> I am running into this BUG, is it relevant?
>
> / # [   64.908801] check_preemption_disabled: 1804 callbacks suppressed
> [   64.908915] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000]
> code: jbd2/vda-8/96
> [   64.909912] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x20/0x30
> [   64.911743] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 96 Comm: jbd2/vda-8 Not tainted
> 6.10.0-gef32eccacce2 #59
> [   64.912373] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> [   64.912741] Call trace:
> [   64.913048]  dump_backtrace+0x9c/0x100
> [   64.913414]  show_stack+0x20/0x38
> [   64.913761]  dump_stack_lvl+0xc4/0x150
> [   64.914197]  dump_stack+0x18/0x28
> [   64.914557]  check_preemption_disabled+0xd8/0x120
> [   64.914944]  debug_smp_processor_id+0x20/0x30
> [   64.915321]  folio_add_lru+0x30/0xa8
> [   64.915680]  filemap_add_folio+0xe4/0x118
> [   64.916082]  __filemap_get_folio+0x178/0x450
> [   64.916455]  __getblk_slow+0xb0/0x310
> [   64.916816]  bdev_getblk+0x94/0xc0
> [   64.917169]  jbd2_journal_get_descriptor_buffer+0x6c/0x1b0
> [   64.917590]  jbd2_journal_commit_transaction+0x7f0/0x1c88
> [   64.917994]  kjournald2+0xd4/0x278
> [   64.918344]  kthread+0x11c/0x128
> [   64.918693]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> [   64.928277] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000]
> code: jbd2/vda-8/96
> [   64.928878] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x20/0x30
> [   64.929381] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 96 Comm: jbd2/vda-8 Not tainted
> 6.10.0-gef32eccacce2 #59
> [   64.929886] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> [   64.930252] Call trace:
> [   64.930544]  dump_backtrace+0x9c/0x100
> [   64.930907]  show_stack+0x20/0x38
> [   64.931255]  dump_stack_lvl+0xc4/0x150
> [   64.931616]  dump_stack+0x18/0x28
> [   64.932022]  check_preemption_disabled+0xd8/0x120
> [   64.932486]  debug_smp_processor_id+0x20/0x30
> [   64.933023]  folio_add_lru+0x30/0xa8
> [   64.933523]  filemap_add_folio+0xe4/0x118
> [   64.933892]  __filemap_get_folio+0x178/0x450
> [   64.934265]  __getblk_slow+0xb0/0x310
> [   64.934626]  bdev_getblk+0x94/0xc0
> [   64.934977]  jbd2_journal_get_descriptor_buffer+0x6c/0x1b0
> [   64.935418]  journal_submit_commit_record.part.0.constprop.0+0x48/0x288
> [   64.935919]  jbd2_journal_commit_transaction+0x1590/0x1c88
> [   64.936519]  kjournald2+0xd4/0x278
> [   64.936908]  kthread+0x11c/0x128
> [   64.937323]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20

This removes the BUG complaint, but I'm unsure if it's the correct fix:

diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index 342ff4e39ba4..a2781edeceef 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ static void __folio_batch_add_and_move(struct
folio_batch *fbatch,

 #define folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, op, on_lru)
                         \
        __folio_batch_add_and_move(
                         \
-               this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.op),
                         \
+               raw_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.op),
                         \
                folio,
                         \
                op,
                         \
                on_lru,
                         \

>
> > +
> >  static void lru_move_tail(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> >  {
> >         if (folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> > @@ -250,23 +279,11 @@ static void lru_move_tail(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> >   */
> >  void folio_rotate_reclaimable(struct folio *folio)
> >  {
> > -       struct folio_batch *fbatch;
> > -       unsigned long flags;
> > -
> >         if (folio_test_locked(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio) ||
> >             folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       folio_get(folio);
> > -       if (!folio_test_clear_lru(folio)) {
> > -               folio_put(folio);
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> > -
> > -       local_lock_irqsave(&cpu_fbatches.lock_irq, flags);
> > -       fbatch = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.lru_move_tail);
> > -       folio_batch_add_and_move(fbatch, folio, lru_move_tail);
> > -       local_unlock_irqrestore(&cpu_fbatches.lock_irq, flags);
> > +       folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_move_tail, true);
> >  }
> >
> >  void lru_note_cost(struct lruvec *lruvec, bool file,
> > @@ -355,21 +372,10 @@ static void folio_activate_drain(int cpu)
> >
> >  void folio_activate(struct folio *folio)
> >  {
> > -       struct folio_batch *fbatch;
> > -
> >         if (folio_test_active(folio) || folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       folio_get(folio);
> > -       if (!folio_test_clear_lru(folio)) {
> > -               folio_put(folio);
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> > -
> > -       local_lock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > -       fbatch = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.lru_activate);
> > -       folio_batch_add_and_move(fbatch, folio, lru_activate);
> > -       local_unlock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > +       folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_activate, true);
> >  }
> >
> >  #else
> > @@ -513,8 +519,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(folio_mark_accessed);
> >   */
> >  void folio_add_lru(struct folio *folio)
> >  {
> > -       struct folio_batch *fbatch;
> > -
> >         VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_active(folio) &&
> >                         folio_test_unevictable(folio), folio);
> >         VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_lru(folio), folio);
> > @@ -524,11 +528,7 @@ void folio_add_lru(struct folio *folio)
> >             lru_gen_in_fault() && !(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC))
> >                 folio_set_active(folio);
> >
> > -       folio_get(folio);
> > -       local_lock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > -       fbatch = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.lru_add);
> > -       folio_batch_add_and_move(fbatch, folio, lru_add);
> > -       local_unlock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > +       folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_add, false);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(folio_add_lru);
> >
> > @@ -702,22 +702,11 @@ void lru_add_drain_cpu(int cpu)
> >   */
> >  void deactivate_file_folio(struct folio *folio)
> >  {
> > -       struct folio_batch *fbatch;
> > -
> >         /* Deactivating an unevictable folio will not accelerate reclaim */
> >         if (folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       folio_get(folio);
> > -       if (!folio_test_clear_lru(folio)) {
> > -               folio_put(folio);
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> > -
> > -       local_lock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > -       fbatch = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.lru_deactivate_file);
> > -       folio_batch_add_and_move(fbatch, folio, lru_deactivate_file);
> > -       local_unlock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > +       folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_deactivate_file, true);
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> > @@ -730,21 +719,10 @@ void deactivate_file_folio(struct folio *folio)
> >   */
> >  void folio_deactivate(struct folio *folio)
> >  {
> > -       struct folio_batch *fbatch;
> > -
> >         if (folio_test_unevictable(folio) || !(folio_test_active(folio) || lru_gen_enabled()))
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       folio_get(folio);
> > -       if (!folio_test_clear_lru(folio)) {
> > -               folio_put(folio);
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> > -
> > -       local_lock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > -       fbatch = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.lru_deactivate);
> > -       folio_batch_add_and_move(fbatch, folio, lru_deactivate);
> > -       local_unlock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > +       folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_deactivate, true);
> >  }
> >
> >  /**
> > @@ -756,22 +734,11 @@ void folio_deactivate(struct folio *folio)
> >   */
> >  void folio_mark_lazyfree(struct folio *folio)
> >  {
> > -       struct folio_batch *fbatch;
> > -
> >         if (!folio_test_anon(folio) || !folio_test_swapbacked(folio) ||
> >             folio_test_swapcache(folio) || folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       folio_get(folio);
> > -       if (!folio_test_clear_lru(folio)) {
> > -               folio_put(folio);
> > -               return;
> > -       }
> > -
> > -       local_lock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > -       fbatch = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_fbatches.lru_lazyfree);
> > -       folio_batch_add_and_move(fbatch, folio, lru_lazyfree);
> > -       local_unlock(&cpu_fbatches.lock);
> > +       folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_lazyfree, true);
> >  }
> >
> >  void lru_add_drain(void)
> > --
> > 2.45.2.803.g4e1b14247a-goog
> >
> >
>
> Thanks
> Barry

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ