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=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 5EF3EC4320A for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:41:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86AF604D7 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:41:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org D86AF604D7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2A2E36B0071; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 09:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 251FA6B0072; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 09:41:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 140C38D0001; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 09:41:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0072.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C936B0071 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 09:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3DD824999B for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:41:21 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78531858762.15.29C782E Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4374D5039B9D for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:41:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39DB200AB; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:41:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1630330880; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=109F1UpxBnRDw6BB5dtv3umGWR8nbJ7IetSDHkmh+sY=; b=c1374K6ZFzZAeuxLeaVJI0XeyCa9vtN8JjP9Bh1wuCxnEiPRHlJiFmwXLMXl9A5tg6dYR7 VW7Awb5Q4nXcqZe4GcBbH1IvKe6o/Mq5Oi0ecs8FuiU8fPrQiChf8+A1N28XrcbwO1oLCg fYMfdDxyCG1CqxrXU7wu+49dFMajrPQ= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3002A3BA1; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:41:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 15:41:19 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, stable@kernel.org, Chris Down , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: fix divide by zero in get_scan_count Message-ID: References: <20210826220149.058089c6@imladris.surriel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: imf05.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=c1374K6Z; spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-Stat-Signature: 4u6f3iioa59cg9m9dbdjofufbnta6j1k X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4374D5039B9D X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-HE-Tag: 1630330881-534005 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 Mon 30-08-21 09:24:22, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:33 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I must be missing something but how can cgroup_size be ever 0 when it > > is > > max(cgroup_size, protection) and protection != 0? > > Going into the condition we use if (low || min), where > it is possible for low > 0 && min == 0. > > Inside the conditional, we can end up testing against > min. Dang, I was looking at the tree without f56ce412a59d7 applied. My bad! Personally I would consider the following slightly easier to follow scan = lruvec_size - lruvec_size * protection / max(cgroup_size, 1); The code is quite tricky already and if you asked me what kind of effect cgroup_size + 1 have there I would just shrug shoulders... Anyway your fix will prevent the reported problem and I cannot see any obvious problem with it either so Acked-by: Michal Hocko -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs