From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.cz, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: migrate: Fix races of __find_get_block() and page migration
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:04:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190712080449.GG13484@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190711170455.5a9ae6e659cab1a85f9aa30c@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 05:04:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:58:38 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > buffer_migrate_page_norefs() can race with bh users in a following way:
> >
> > CPU1 CPU2
> > buffer_migrate_page_norefs()
> > buffer_migrate_lock_buffers()
> > checks bh refs
> > spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock)
> > __find_get_block()
> > spin_lock(&mapping->private_lock)
> > grab bh ref
> > spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock)
> > move page do bh work
> >
> > This can result in various issues like lost updates to buffers (i.e.
> > metadata corruption) or use after free issues for the old page.
> >
> > Closing this race window is relatively difficult. We could hold
> > mapping->private_lock in buffer_migrate_page_norefs() until we are
> > finished with migrating the page but the lock hold times would be rather
> > big. So let's revert to a more careful variant of page migration requiring
> > eviction of buffers on migrated page. This is effectively
> > fallback_migrate_page() that additionally invalidates bh LRUs in case
> > try_to_free_buffers() failed.
>
> Is this premature optimization? Holding ->private_lock while messing
> with the buffers would be the standard way of addressing this. The
> longer hold times *might* be an issue, but we don't know this, do we?
> If there are indeed such problems then they could be improved by, say,
> doing more of the newpage preparation prior to taking ->private_lock.
>
To some extent, we do not know how much of a problem this patch will
be either or what impact avoiding dirty block pages during migration
is either. So both approaches have their downsides.
However, failing a high-order allocation is typically benign and it is an
inevitable problem that depends on the workload. I don't think we could
ever hit a case whereby there was enough spinning to cause a soft lockup
but on the other hand, I don't think there is much scope for doing more
of the preparation steps before acquiring private_lock either.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-12 8:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-11 12:58 [PATCH RFC] mm: migrate: Fix races of __find_get_block() and page migration Jan Kara
2019-07-12 0:04 ` Andrew Morton
2019-07-12 8:04 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2019-07-12 9:17 ` Jan Kara
2019-07-12 10:10 ` Mel Gorman
2019-07-12 11:20 ` Jan Kara
2019-07-12 12:39 ` Mel Gorman
2019-07-12 21:21 ` Andrew Morton
2019-07-14 21:20 ` Mel Gorman
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=20190712080449.GG13484@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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).