All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
	Junil Lee <junil0814.lee@lge.com>,
	ngupta@vflare.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zsmalloc: fix migrate_zspage-zs_free race condition
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:20:00 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160118082000.GA20244@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <569C9A1F.2020303@suse.cz>

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 08:54:07AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 18.1.2016 8:39, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (01/18/16 16:11), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > [..]
> >>> so, even if clear_bit_unlock/test_and_set_bit_lock do smp_mb or
> >>> barrier(), there is no corresponding barrier from record_obj()->WRITE_ONCE().
> >>> so I don't think WRITE_ONCE() will help the compiler, or am I missing
> >>> something?
> >>
> >> We need two things
> >> 2. memory barrier.
> >>
> >> As compiler barrier, WRITE_ONCE works to prevent store tearing here
> >> by compiler.
> >> However, if we omit unpin_tag here, we lose memory barrier(e,g, smp_mb)
> >> so another CPU could see stale data caused CPU memory reordering.
> > 
> > oh... good find! lost release semantic of unpin_tag()...
> 
> Ah, release semantic, good point indeed. OK then we need the v2 approach again,
> with WRITE_ONCE() in record_obj(). Or some kind of record_obj_release() with
> release semantic, which would be a bit more effective, but I guess migration is
> not that critical path to be worth introducing it.

WRITE_ONCE in record_obj would add more memory operations in obj_malloc
but I don't feel it's too heavy in this phase so,

How about this? Junil, Could you resend patch if others agree this?
Thanks.

+/*
+ * record_obj updates handle's value to free_obj and it shouldn't
+ * invalidate lock bit(ie, HANDLE_PIN_BIT) of handle, otherwise
+ * it breaks synchronization using pin_tag(e,g, zs_free) so let's
+ * keep the lock bit.
+ */
 static void record_obj(unsigned long handle, unsigned long obj)
 {
-	*(unsigned long *)handle = obj;
+	int locked = (*(unsigned long *)handle) & (1<<HANDLE_PIN_BIT);
+	unsigned long val = obj | locked;
+
+	/*
+	 * WRITE_ONCE could prevent store tearing like below
+	 * *(unsigned long *)handle = free_obj
+	 * *(unsigned long *)handle |= locked;
+	 */
+	WRITE_ONCE(*(unsigned long *)handle, val);
 }



> 
> Thanks,
> Vlastimil
> 
> > 
> > 	-ss
> > 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
	Junil Lee <junil0814.lee@lge.com>,
	ngupta@vflare.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zsmalloc: fix migrate_zspage-zs_free race condition
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:20:00 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160118082000.GA20244@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <569C9A1F.2020303@suse.cz>

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 08:54:07AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 18.1.2016 8:39, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (01/18/16 16:11), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > [..]
> >>> so, even if clear_bit_unlock/test_and_set_bit_lock do smp_mb or
> >>> barrier(), there is no corresponding barrier from record_obj()->WRITE_ONCE().
> >>> so I don't think WRITE_ONCE() will help the compiler, or am I missing
> >>> something?
> >>
> >> We need two things
> >> 2. memory barrier.
> >>
> >> As compiler barrier, WRITE_ONCE works to prevent store tearing here
> >> by compiler.
> >> However, if we omit unpin_tag here, we lose memory barrier(e,g, smp_mb)
> >> so another CPU could see stale data caused CPU memory reordering.
> > 
> > oh... good find! lost release semantic of unpin_tag()...
> 
> Ah, release semantic, good point indeed. OK then we need the v2 approach again,
> with WRITE_ONCE() in record_obj(). Or some kind of record_obj_release() with
> release semantic, which would be a bit more effective, but I guess migration is
> not that critical path to be worth introducing it.

WRITE_ONCE in record_obj would add more memory operations in obj_malloc
but I don't feel it's too heavy in this phase so,

How about this? Junil, Could you resend patch if others agree this?
Thanks.

+/*
+ * record_obj updates handle's value to free_obj and it shouldn't
+ * invalidate lock bit(ie, HANDLE_PIN_BIT) of handle, otherwise
+ * it breaks synchronization using pin_tag(e,g, zs_free) so let's
+ * keep the lock bit.
+ */
 static void record_obj(unsigned long handle, unsigned long obj)
 {
-	*(unsigned long *)handle = obj;
+	int locked = (*(unsigned long *)handle) & (1<<HANDLE_PIN_BIT);
+	unsigned long val = obj | locked;
+
+	/*
+	 * WRITE_ONCE could prevent store tearing like below
+	 * *(unsigned long *)handle = free_obj
+	 * *(unsigned long *)handle |= locked;
+	 */
+	WRITE_ONCE(*(unsigned long *)handle, val);
 }



> 
> Thanks,
> Vlastimil
> 
> > 
> > 	-ss
> > 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-18  8:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-18  5:39 [PATCH v3] zsmalloc: fix migrate_zspage-zs_free race condition Junil Lee
2016-01-18  5:39 ` Junil Lee
2016-01-18  6:13 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  6:13   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  6:36 ` Minchan Kim
2016-01-18  6:36   ` Minchan Kim
2016-01-18  6:54   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  6:54     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  7:11     ` Minchan Kim
2016-01-18  7:11       ` Minchan Kim
2016-01-18  7:39       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  7:39         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  7:54         ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-01-18  7:54           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-01-18  8:20           ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2016-01-18  8:20             ` Minchan Kim
2016-01-18 11:08             ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18 11:08               ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18 12:18             ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-01-18 12:18               ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-01-18 14:09               ` Minchan Kim
2016-01-18 14:09                 ` Minchan Kim
2016-01-18 14:10                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-01-18 14:10                   ` Vlastimil Babka
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-01-18  1:15 Junil Lee
2016-01-18  1:15 ` Junil Lee
2016-01-18  4:14 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  4:14   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  4:17   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-01-18  4:17     ` Sergey Senozhatsky

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=20160118082000.GA20244@bbox \
    --to=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=junil0814.lee@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=ngupta@vflare.org \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.