From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D76C17441 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CBB21E6F for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="Gv4CNBoQ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 36CBB21E6F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B55AB6B0005; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 09:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B070A6B0006; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 09:59:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9CE2C6B0008; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 09:59:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0018.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.18]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884836B0005 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 09:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BD80181AEF1D for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:59:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76147934772.21.vase45_7250ebcf86035 X-HE-Tag: vase45_7250ebcf86035 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6308 Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com (mail-qk1-f194.google.com [209.85.222.194]) by imf46.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:59:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id d13so14676034qko.3 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 06:59:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=gSINY5VnDSmpBftGgJ6lg01oQr1mDIp5ALDVHMXlZtw=; b=Gv4CNBoQWcvSweiWqUWk1x91ARUiIp699peYUwjmh6dVDMofdbK9TZUTy69OMR5wBz Sj+vB2GcvnlKfNRZEIMuMD3yS8pJJt++bT0SIHOtaVbPAljtUuvSlhlcMWxzQGQgoRE3 Kcd06rwOsC5lFXfYYtTIKinfT2hJtltQwpwK1te3zTPVqwAUXLHL6fYLU7jrBrgS8qoj 5wTN6yJDZt4fm/8Xfr2nFuWSweu2iE2sTod84emu3a9nTDFmzXvrouK8S00TlYIY1f00 1fPMpGYYvGHDTjbQoG1Pekl7cneX7THKqwP87lTRSl0Y+XYeoSKkQnVFVOyuY5lkinLg KMnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=gSINY5VnDSmpBftGgJ6lg01oQr1mDIp5ALDVHMXlZtw=; b=ARTegK4bt285Y2ys5XlF+JfwjKdF1XdwoWMlgswgI67ioNaxfIipxTaVLSdynAvbYc +nDhk16zZrL09G2CHgkB70kr53vaK8zPFEt4qNsNd5zKTwZ0CdJbCc4fgQg46oVaiTQr Os2M1qyfIpGXm0BGYXIqMs2kfN1vRrdlfIZWyGYHcKYK+mYSIPnUNT//oXDb1cNFnAza 2PaM6WxF4DitMH6QLIOP7xm3NJ2F5/xTAP/1yNu51Y0v3T3fOcYWW4DVq4cMztythGmP H4dYjx4zsJ0AMwqM9sQ9Z1bIfDYvb/jjtWFlYAd2Tm8WW5hThs7HI2Xqma9QOShXWkKO /bKw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUMsXb0pIpUC8TeB4/5hI/rMOBmZRq7OOoPa8Tp7+bYZnuvbD5K 1NTfN82AJxC0pvNvAl/+EDd/EA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGVHT2d2Zo/+rHOGGT2x3k3jwx+Qqewg1Ac2Y4lPfZSQlSC0MLZdrrZYbG4EQSFse6ASdTJg== X-Received: by 2002:a37:9d86:: with SMTP id g128mr5962601qke.191.1573570784074; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 06:59:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:500::aa8c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q34sm8004104qte.50.2019.11.12.06.59.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 06:59:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 06:59:42 -0800 From: Johannes Weiner To: Michal Hocko Cc: Chris Down , Qian Cai , akpm@linux-foundation.org, guro@fb.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm/vmscan: fix an undefined behavior for zone id Message-ID: <20191112145942.GA168812@cmpxchg.org> References: <20191108204407.1435-1-cai@lca.pw> <64E60F6F-7582-427B-8DD5-EF97B1656F5A@lca.pw> <20191111130516.GA891635@chrisdown.name> <20191111131427.GB891635@chrisdown.name> <20191111132812.GK1396@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191111132812.GK1396@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Qian, thanks for the report and the fix. On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 02:28:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 11-11-19 13:14:27, Chris Down wrote: > > Chris Down writes: > > > Ah, I just saw this in my local checkout and thought it was from my > > > changes, until I saw it's also on clean mmots checkout. Thanks for the > > > fixup! > > > > Also, does this mean we should change callers that may pass through > > zone_idx=MAX_NR_ZONES to become MAX_NR_ZONES-1 in a separate commit, then > > remove this interim fixup? I'm worried otherwise we might paper over real > > issues in future. > > Yes, removing this special casing is reasonable. I am not sure > MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 is a better choice though. It is error prone and > zone_idx is the highest zone we should consider and MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 > be ZONE_DEVICE if it is configured. But ZONE_DEVICE is really standing > outside of MM reclaim code AFAIK. It would be probably better to have > MAX_LRU_ZONE (equal to MOVABLE) and use it instead. We already use MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 everywhere else in vmscan.c to mean "no zone restrictions" - get_scan_count() is the odd one out: - mem_cgroup_shrink_node() - try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() - balance_pgdat() - kswapd() - shrink_all_memory() It's a little odd that it points to ZONE_DEVICE, but it's MUCH less subtle than handling both inclusive and exclusive range delimiters. So I think the better fix would be this: --- >From 1566a255eef7c2165d435125231ad1eeecac7959 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Johannes Weiner Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:46:25 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: simplify lruvec_lru_size() fix get_scan_count() passes MAX_NR_ZONES for the reclaim index, which is beyond the range of valid zone indexes, but used to be handled before the patch. Every other callsite in vmscan.c passes MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 to express "all zones, please", so do the same here. Reported-by: Qian Cai Reported-by: Chris Down Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner --- mm/vmscan.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index df859b1d583c..34ad8a0f3f27 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2322,10 +2322,10 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, * anon in [0], file in [1] */ - anon = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES) + - lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES); - file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES) + - lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES); + anon = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) + + lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1); + file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) + + lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1); spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock); if (unlikely(reclaim_stat->recent_scanned[0] > anon / 4)) { -- 2.24.0