linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@linaro.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmpressure: fix divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:08:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130909110847.GB18056@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1309062254470.11420@eggly.anvils>

On Fri 06-09-13 22:59:16, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr->scanned before
> taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.

As vmpressure_work_fn seems the be the only place where we set scanned
to 0 (except for the rare occasion when scanned overflows which
would be really surprising) then the only possible way would be two
vmpressure_work_fn racing over the same work item. system_wq is
!WQ_NON_REENTRANT so one work item might be processed by multiple
workers on different CPUs. This means that the vmpr->scanned check in
the beginning of vmpressure_work_fn is inherently racy.

Hugh's patch fixes the issue obviously but doesn't it make more sense to
move the initial vmpr->scanned check under the lock instead?

Anton, what was the initial motivation for the out of the lock
check? Does it really optimize anything?

> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> 
>  mm/vmpressure.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> --- 3.11/mm/vmpressure.c	2013-09-02 13:46:10.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux/mm/vmpressure.c	2013-09-06 22:43:03.596003080 -0700
> @@ -187,6 +187,9 @@ static void vmpressure_work_fn(struct wo
>  	vmpr->reclaimed = 0;
>  	spin_unlock(&vmpr->sr_lock);
>  
> +	if (!scanned)
> +		return;
> +
>  	do {
>  		if (vmpressure_event(vmpr, scanned, reclaimed))
>  			break;

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-09-09 11:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-09-07  5:59 Hugh Dickins
2013-09-08  1:43 ` David Rientjes
2013-09-09 11:08 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2013-09-11 15:40   ` Anton Vorontsov
2013-09-11 16:03     ` Michal Hocko
2013-09-11 16:12       ` Anton Vorontsov
2013-09-11 20:04       ` Hugh Dickins
2013-09-12 11:46         ` Michal Hocko
2013-09-11  5:32 ` Anton Vorontsov

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=20130909110847.GB18056@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anton.vorontsov@linaro.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.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