From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, <ngupta@vflare.org>,
<senozhatsky@chromium.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [Phishing Risk] [External] [PATCH 2/3] mm/zsmalloc.c: combine two atomic ops in zs_pool_dec_isolated()
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:43:45 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b85c741-59ea-e3a0-5b58-08ea6e8bfbbc@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZfGtUq72KULin=9onhf=7o5XwzR79E7QBdgg+ny1gYQGRvzw@mail.gmail.com>
On 2021/6/25 18:40, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 5:32 PM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/6/25 16:46, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> On 2021/6/25 15:29, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:32 PM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021/6/25 13:01, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 8:40 PM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> atomic_long_dec_and_test() is equivalent to atomic_long_dec() and
>>>>>>> atomic_long_read() == 0. Use it to make code more succinct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, they are not equal. atomic_long_dec_and_test implies a
>>>>>> full memory barrier around it but atomic_long_dec and atomic_long_read
>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks for comment. They are indeed not completely equal as you said.
>>>>> What I mean is they can do the same things we want in this specified context.
>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. Using individual operations can eliminate memory barriers.
>>>> We will pay for the barrier if we use atomic_long_dec_and_test here.
>>>
>>> The combination of atomic_long_dec and atomic_long_read usecase is rare and looks somehow
>>> weird. I think it's worth to do this with the cost of barrier.
>>>
>>
>> It seems there is race between zs_pool_dec_isolated and zs_unregister_migration if pool->destroying
>> is reordered before the atomic_long_dec and atomic_long_read ops. So this memory barrier is necessary:
>>
>> zs_pool_dec_isolated zs_unregister_migration
>> pool->destroying != true
>> pool->destroying = true;
>> smp_mb();
>> wait_for_isolated_drain
>> wait_event with atomic_long_read(&pool->isolated_pages) != 0
>> atomic_long_dec(&pool->isolated_pages);
>> atomic_long_read(&pool->isolated_pages) == 0
>
> I am not familiar with zsmalloc. So I do not know whether the race
> that you mentioned above exists. But If it exists, the fix also does
> not make sense to me. If there should be inserted a smp_mb between
> atomic_long_dec and atomic_long_read, you should insert
> smp_mb__after_atomic instead of using atomic_long_dec_and_test.
> Because smp_mb__after_atomic can be optimized on certain architecture
> (e.g. x86_64).
>
Sorry for the delay.
I think there is two options:
atomic_long_dec(&pool->isolated_pages);
smp_mb__after_atomic
atomic_long_read(&pool->isolated_pages) == 0
We have two atomic ops with one smp_mb.
vs
atomic_long_dec_and_test while implies __smp_mb__before_atomic + atomic_long_ops + smp_mb__after_atomic.
We have one atomic ops with two smp_mb.
I think either one works but prefer later one. What do you think?
Thanks.
> Thanks.
>
>>
>> Thus wake_up_all is missed.
>> And the comment in zs_pool_dec_isolated() said:
>> /*
>> * There's no possibility of racing, since wait_for_isolated_drain()
>> * checks the isolated count under &class->lock after enqueuing
>> * on migration_wait.
>> */
>>
>> But I found &class->lock is indeed not acquired for wait_for_isolated_drain(). So I think the above race
>> is possible. Does this make senses for you ?
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That RMW operations that have a return value is equal to the following.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> smp_mb__before_atomic()
>>>>>> non-RMW operations or RMW operations that have no return value
>>>>>> smp_mb__after_atomic()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> mm/zsmalloc.c | 3 +--
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
>>>>>>> index 1476289b619f..0b4b23740d78 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1828,13 +1828,12 @@ static void putback_zspage_deferred(struct zs_pool *pool,
>>>>>>> static inline void zs_pool_dec_isolated(struct zs_pool *pool)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> VM_BUG_ON(atomic_long_read(&pool->isolated_pages) <= 0);
>>>>>>> - atomic_long_dec(&pool->isolated_pages);
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> * There's no possibility of racing, since wait_for_isolated_drain()
>>>>>>> * checks the isolated count under &class->lock after enqueuing
>>>>>>> * on migration_wait.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> - if (atomic_long_read(&pool->isolated_pages) == 0 && pool->destroying)
>>>>>>> + if (atomic_long_dec_and_test(&pool->isolated_pages) && pool->destroying)
>>>>>>> wake_up_all(&pool->migration_wait);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 2.23.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-01 2:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-24 12:39 [PATCH 0/3] Cleanup for zsmalloc Miaohe Lin
2021-06-24 12:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm/zsmalloc.c: remove confusing code in obj_free() Miaohe Lin
2021-06-24 12:39 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm/zsmalloc.c: combine two atomic ops in zs_pool_dec_isolated() Miaohe Lin
2021-06-25 5:01 ` [Phishing Risk] [External] " Muchun Song
2021-06-25 6:32 ` Miaohe Lin
2021-06-25 7:29 ` Muchun Song
2021-06-25 8:46 ` Miaohe Lin
2021-06-25 9:32 ` Miaohe Lin
2021-06-25 10:40 ` Muchun Song
2021-07-01 2:43 ` Miaohe Lin [this message]
2021-06-24 12:39 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm/zsmalloc.c: improve readability for async_free_zspage() Miaohe Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1b85c741-59ea-e3a0-5b58-08ea6e8bfbbc@huawei.com \
--to=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=ngupta@vflare.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).