[patch 061/262] mm: list_lru: fix the return value of list_lru_count_one()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm: list_lru: fix the return value of list_lru_count_one()

Since commit 2788cf0c401c ("memcg: reparent list_lrus and free kmemcg_id
on css offline"), ->nr_items can be negative during memory cgroup
reparenting.  In this case, list_lru_count_one() will return an unusual
and huge value, which can surprise users.  At least for now it hasn't
affected any users.  But it is better to let list_lru_count_ont() returns
zero when ->nr_items is negative.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211025124910.56433-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

 mm/list_lru.c |    5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/mm/list_lru.c~mm-list_lru-fix-the-return-value-of-list_lru_count_one
+++ a/mm/list_lru.c
@@ -176,13 +176,16 @@ unsigned long list_lru_count_one(struct
 {
 	struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
 	struct list_lru_one *l;
-	unsigned long count;
+	long count;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	l = list_lru_from_memcg_idx(nlru, memcg_cache_id(memcg));
 	count = READ_ONCE(l->nr_items);
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
+	if (unlikely(count < 0))
+		count = 0;
+
 	return count;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_count_one);
_



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Archive]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux