On 22.09.20 16:37, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> pageset_update() attempts to update pcplist's high and batch values in a way
> that readers don't observe batch > high. It uses smp_wmb() to order the updates
> in a way to achieve this. However, without proper pairing read barriers in
> readers this guarantee doesn't hold, and there are no such barriers in
> e.g. free_unref_page_commit().
>
> Commit 88e8ac11d2ea ("mm, page_alloc: fix core hung in free_pcppages_bulk()")
> already showed this is problematic, and solved this by ultimately only trusing
> pcp->count of the current cpu with interrupts disabled.
>
> The update dance with unpaired write barriers thus makes no sense. Replace
> them with plain WRITE_ONCE to prevent store tearing, and document that the
> values can change asynchronously and should not be trusted for correctness.
>
> All current readers appear to be OK after 88e8ac11d2ea. Convert them to
> READ_ONCE to prevent unnecessary read tearing, but mainly to alert anybody
> making future changes to the code that special care is needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 76c2b4578723..99b74c1c2b0a 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1297,7 +1297,7 @@ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
> {
> int migratetype = 0;
> int batch_free = 0;
> - int prefetch_nr = 0;
> + int prefetch_nr = READ_ONCE(pcp->batch);
> bool isolated_pageblocks;
> struct page *page, *tmp;
> LIST_HEAD(head);
> @@ -1348,8 +1348,10 @@ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
> * avoid excessive prefetching due to large count, only
> * prefetch buddy for the first pcp->batch nr of pages.
> */
> - if (prefetch_nr++ < pcp->batch)
> + if (prefetch_nr) {
> prefetch_buddy(page);
> + prefetch_nr--;
> + }
> } while (--count && --batch_free && !list_empty(list));
> }
>
> @@ -3131,10 +3133,8 @@ static void free_unref_page_commit(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn)
> pcp = &this_cpu_ptr(zone->pageset)->pcp;
> list_add(&page->lru, &pcp->lists[migratetype]);
> pcp->count++;
> - if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
> - unsigned long batch = READ_ONCE(pcp->batch);
> - free_pcppages_bulk(zone, batch, pcp);
> - }
> + if (pcp->count >= READ_ONCE(pcp->high))
> + free_pcppages_bulk(zone, READ_ONCE(pcp->batch), pcp);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -3318,7 +3318,7 @@ static struct page *__rmqueue_pcplist(struct zone *zone, int migratetype,
> do {
> if (list_empty(list)) {
> pcp->count += rmqueue_bulk(zone, 0,
> - pcp->batch, list,
> + READ_ONCE(pcp->batch), list,
> migratetype, alloc_flags);
> if (unlikely(list_empty(list)))
> return NULL;
> @@ -6174,13 +6174,16 @@ static int zone_batchsize(struct zone *zone)
> }
>
> /*
> - * pcp->high and pcp->batch values are related and dependent on one another:
> - * ->batch must never be higher then ->high.
> - * The following function updates them in a safe manner without read side
> - * locking.
> + * pcp->high and pcp->batch values are related and generally batch is lower
> + * than high. They are also related to pcp->count such that count is lower
> + * than high, and as soon as it reaches high, the pcplist is flushed.
> *
> - * Any new users of pcp->batch and pcp->high should ensure they can cope with
> - * those fields changing asynchronously (acording to the above rule).
> + * However, guaranteeing these relations at all times would require e.g. write
> + * barriers here but also careful usage of read barriers at the read side, and
> + * thus be prone to error and bad for performance. Thus the update only prevents
> + * store tearing. Any new users of pcp->batch and pcp->high should ensure they
> + * can cope with those fields changing asynchronously, and fully trust only the
> + * pcp->count field on the local CPU with interrupts disabled.
> *
> * mutex_is_locked(&pcp_batch_high_lock) required when calling this function
> * outside of boot time (or some other assurance that no concurrent updaters
> @@ -6189,15 +6192,8 @@ static int zone_batchsize(struct zone *zone)
> static void pageset_update(struct per_cpu_pages *pcp, unsigned long high,
> unsigned long batch)
> {
> - /* start with a fail safe value for batch */
> - pcp->batch = 1;
> - smp_wmb();
> -
> - /* Update high, then batch, in order */
> - pcp->high = high;
> - smp_wmb();
> -
> - pcp->batch = batch;
> + WRITE_ONCE(pcp->batch, batch);
> + WRITE_ONCE(pcp->high, high);
> }
>
> static void pageset_init(struct per_cpu_pageset *p)
>
I *think* this is okay and obviously simplifies things. But to be 100%
sure, I'll have to rely on your judgment :)
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
