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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 C246EC32771 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FAC206ED for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:36:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 85FAC206ED Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 13D258E0005; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 03:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0EECF8E0001; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 03:36:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EF7838E0005; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 03:36:45 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0238.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.238]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11898E0001 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 03:36:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D17A824999B for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:36:45 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76357439970.27.thumb24_b7c20e52005 X-HE-Tag: thumb24_b7c20e52005 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5359 Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com (mail-wm1-f67.google.com [209.85.128.67]) by imf46.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:36:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id b19so1865644wmj.4 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:36:44 -0800 (PST) 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=irB8OwBwqnqvkz6oPuoYuPz/4sdsl2cn2yoMzkHZKsE=; b=flZgElOomgpDtyK4asC1qCBJozAh2Jth6qNv5c2N+h8oXw3p413mBo72dA2W/UM6Rl 92Vrwiefs+z5g/iEOojwbgnuyTKTpR7yO0VTzq5uisIrHgHWFeEfJo5qsucY/CGEhYkq oRWJifbxbABGFp2vmckNQY4GE0aUDnV87exSzu/XIh5jn11obykJf4iQlQ2Jn0Nx4S0k quFWI5o2h+NV9yIpbSdoG3Uv4fTn6g6BUP1IzeQ2RI9WKrseRf8vKqaZR+gL2gPPYsxR WZorPlAb7AyUHMO94vATyA/G583jg3ZLYDypbX6nCSKmD2cIyLbndeIaYH0cfdJMV2Cn CT+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVSklmT2SXfWef03Tbdr36/DSxU4LzCApneMxrkg/EKA8LHOJ+m zsRLrhBCd83yIKx9+F1Y3aQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxVrlpShOHKCN8yEhJUcjRM9COE6D3pIqi7f+50M6t/OB6+GYR4eImi9/P/9Jo42r8+8SbClQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:80d4:: with SMTP id b203mr3322499wmd.102.1578559003876; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:36:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t81sm2055898wmg.6.2020.01.09.00.36.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:36:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:36:41 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Wei Yang Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list Message-ID: <20200109083641.GH4951@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200103143407.1089-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <20200106102345.GE12699@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200107012241.GA15341@richard> <20200107083808.GC32178@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200108003543.GA13943@richard> <20200108094041.GQ32178@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200109031821.GA5206@richard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200109031821.GA5206@richard> 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: On Thu 09-01-20 11:18:21, Wei Yang wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 10:40:41AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Wed 08-01-20 08:35:43, Wei Yang wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:38:08AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> >On Tue 07-01-20 09:22:41, Wei Yang wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 11:23:45AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> >> >On Fri 03-01-20 22:34:07, Wei Yang wrote: > >> >> >> As all the other places, we grab the lock before manipulate the defer list. > >> >> >> Current implementation may face a race condition. > >> >> > > >> >> >Please always make sure to describe the effect of the change. Why a racy > >> >> >list_empty check matters? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Hmm... access the list without proper lock leads to many bad behaviors. > >> > > >> >My point is that the changelog should describe that bad behavior. > >> > > >> >> For example, if we grab the lock after checking list_empty, the page may > >> >> already be removed from list in split_huge_page_list. And then list_del_init > >> >> would trigger bug. > >> > > >> >And how does list_empty check under the lock guarantee that the page is > >> >on the deferred list? > >> > >> Just one confusion, is this kind of description basic concept of concurrent > >> programming? How detail level we need to describe the effect? > > > >When I write changelogs for patches like this I usually describe, what > >is the potential race - e.g. > > CPU1 CPU2 > > path1 path2 > > check lock > > operation2 > > unlock > > lock > > # check might not hold anymore > > operation1 > > unlock > > > >and what is the effect of the race - e.g. a crash, data corruption, > >pointless attempt for operation1 which fails with user visible effect > >etc. > > Hi, Michal, here is my attempt for an example. Hope this one looks good to > you. > > > For example, the potential race would be: > > CPU1 CPU2 > mem_cgroup_move_account split_huge_page_to_list > !list_empty > lock > !list_empty > list_del > unlock > lock > # !list_empty might not hold anymore > list_del_init > unlock > > When this sequence happens, the list_del_init() in > mem_cgroup_move_account() would crash since the page is already been > removed by list_del in split_huge_page_to_list(). Yes this looks much more informative. I would just add that this will crash if CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs