linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] mm/zsmalloc: use zpdesc in trylock_zspage/lock

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: <66ad2d2d.170a0220.668d3.6c80@mx.google.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:02:02 -0700
From: Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>
To: alexs@...nel.org
Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>,
	Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	minchan@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, senozhatsky@...omium.org,
	david@...hat.com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
	Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, nphamcs@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] mm/zsmalloc: use zpdesc in
 trylock_zspage/lock_zspage

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 07:25:14PM +0800, alexs@...nel.org wrote:
> From: Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>
> 
> To use zpdesc in trylock_zspage/lock_zspage funcs, we add couple of helpers:
> zpdesc_lock/zpdesc_unlock/zpdesc_trylock/zpdesc_wait_locked and
> zpdesc_get/zpdesc_put for this purpose.

You should always include the "()" following function names. It just
makes everything more readable.

> Here we use the folio series func in guts for 2 reasons, one zswap.zpool
> only get single page, and use folio could save some compound_head checking;
> two, folio_put could bypass devmap checking that we don't need.
> 
> Originally-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>
> ---
>  mm/zpdesc.h   | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  mm/zsmalloc.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/zpdesc.h b/mm/zpdesc.h
> index 2dbef231f616..3b04197cec9d 100644
> --- a/mm/zpdesc.h
> +++ b/mm/zpdesc.h
> @@ -63,4 +63,34 @@ static_assert(sizeof(struct zpdesc) <= sizeof(struct page));
>  	const struct page *:		(const struct zpdesc *)(p),	\
>  	struct page *:			(struct zpdesc *)(p)))
>  
> +static inline void zpdesc_lock(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> +	folio_lock(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool zpdesc_trylock(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> +	return folio_trylock(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> +static inline void zpdesc_unlock(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> +	folio_unlock(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> +static inline void zpdesc_wait_locked(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> +	folio_wait_locked(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}

The more I look at zsmalloc, the more skeptical I get about it "needing"
the folio_lock. At a glance it seems like a zspage already has its own lock,
and the migration doesn't appear to be truly physical? There's probably
something I'm missing... it would make this code a lot simpler to drop
many of the folio locks.

> +
> +static inline void zpdesc_get(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> +	folio_get(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> +static inline void zpdesc_put(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> +	folio_put(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
>  #endif
> diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> index a532851025f9..243677a9c6d2 100644
> --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> @@ -433,13 +433,17 @@ static __maybe_unused int is_first_page(struct page *page)
>  	return PagePrivate(page);
>  }
>  
> +static int is_first_zpdesc(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> +	return PagePrivate(zpdesc_page(zpdesc));
> +}
> +

I feel like we might not even need to use the PG_private flag for
zpages? It seems to me like its just used for sanity checking. Can
zpage->first_page ever not point to the first zpdesc?

For the purpose of introducing the memdesc its fine to continue using
it; just some food for thought.