lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] mm/mempolicy: fix lock contention on mems_allowed
fix the lkml address (fat fingers, sorry)

On Thu 11-08-22 16:06:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Cc Wei Yang who is author of 78b132e9bae9]
>
> On Thu 11-08-22 20:41:57, Abel Wu wrote:
> > The mems_allowed field can be modified by other tasks, so it isn't
> > safe to access it with alloc_lock unlocked even in the current
> > process context.
> >
> > Say there are two tasks: A from cpusetA is performing set_mempolicy(2),
> > and B is changing cpusetA's cpuset.mems:
> >
> > A (set_mempolicy) B (echo xx > cpuset.mems)
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > pol = mpol_new();
> > update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
> > foreach t in cpusetA {
> > cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
> > mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
> > task_lock(t); // t could be A
> > new = f(A->mems_allowed);
> > update t->mems_allowed;
> > pol.create(pol, new);
> > task_unlock(t);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > task_lock(A);
> > A->mempolicy = pol;
> > task_unlock(A);
> >
> > In this case A's pol->nodes is computed by old mems_allowed, and could
> > be inconsistent with A's new mems_allowed.
>
> Just to clarify. With an unfortunate timing and those two nodemasks
> overlap the end user effect could be a premature OOM because some nodes
> wouldn't be considered, right?
>
> > While it is different when replacing vmas' policy: the pol->nodes is
> > gone wild only when current_cpuset_is_being_rebound():
> >
> > A (mbind) B (echo xx > cpuset.mems)
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > pol = mpol_new();
> > mmap_write_lock(A->mm);
> > cpuset_being_rebound = cpusetA;
> > update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
> > foreach t in cpusetA {
> > cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
> > mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
> > task_lock(t); // t could be A
> > mask = f(A->mems_allowed);
> > update t->mems_allowed;
> > pol.create(pol, mask);
> > task_unlock(t);
> > }
> > }
> > foreach v in A->mm {
> > if (cpuset_being_rebound == cpusetA)
> > pol.rebind(pol, cpuset.mems);
> > v->vma_policy = pol;
> > }
> > mmap_write_unlock(A->mm);
> > mmap_write_lock(t->mm);
> > mpol_rebind_mm(t->mm);
> > mmap_write_unlock(t->mm);
> > }
> > }
> > cpuset_being_rebound = NULL;
> >
> > In this case, the cpuset.mems, which has already done updating, is
> > finally used for calculating pol->nodes, rather than A->mems_allowed.
> > So it is OK to call mpol_set_nodemask() with alloc_lock unlocked when
> > doing mbind(2).
> >
> > Fixes: 78b132e9bae9 ("mm/mempolicy: remove or narrow the lock on current")
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
>
> The fix looks correct.
>
> > ---
> > mm/mempolicy.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index d39b01fd52fe..61e4e6f5cfe8 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -855,12 +855,14 @@ static long do_set_mempolicy(unsigned short mode, unsigned short flags,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > + task_lock(current);
> > ret = mpol_set_nodemask(new, nodes, scratch);
> > if (ret) {
> > + task_unlock(current);
> > mpol_put(new);
> > goto out;
> > }
> > - task_lock(current);
> > +
> > old = current->mempolicy;
> > current->mempolicy = new;
> > if (new && new->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE)
> > --
> > 2.31.1
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-11 16:12    [W:7.287 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site