Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
大约 2 年 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 16 8月, 2022 1 次提交
  3. 20 1月, 2022 1 次提交
  5. 07 1月, 2022 3 次提交
  7. 30 11月, 2021 1 次提交
  9. 29 11月, 2021 1 次提交
  11. 15 11月, 2021 1 次提交
  13. 21 10月, 2021 2 次提交
  15. 19 10月, 2021 1 次提交
  17. 26 9月, 2021 13 次提交
  19. 14 7月, 2021 8 次提交
  21. 14 4月, 2021 2 次提交
  23. 09 4月, 2021 1 次提交
  25. 28 1月, 2021 1 次提交
    • L
      mm: don't put pinned pages into the swap cache · 8d757a4b
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      stable inclusion
from stable-5.10.9
commit 72c5ce89427feb277ac6f998a6ec27b820863fb5
bugzilla: 47457

--------------------------------

[ Upstream commit feb889fb ]

So technically there is nothing wrong with adding a pinned page to the
swap cache, but the pinning obviously means that the page can't actually
be free'd right now anyway, so it's a bit pointless.

However, the real problem is not with it being a bit pointless: the real
issue is that after we've added it to the swap cache, we'll try to unmap
the page.  That will succeed, because the code in mm/rmap.c doesn't know
or care about pinned pages.

Even the unmapping isn't fatal per se, since the page will stay around
in memory due to the pinning, and we do hold the connection to it using
the swap cache.  But when we then touch it next and take a page fault,
the logic in do_swap_page() will map it back into the process as a
possibly read-only page, and we'll then break the page association on
the next COW fault.

Honestly, this issue could have been fixed in any of those other places:
(a) we could refuse to unmap a pinned page (which makes conceptual
sense), or (b) we could make sure to re-map a pinned page writably in
do_swap_page(), or (c) we could just make do_wp_page() not COW the
pinned page (which was what we historically did before that "mm:
do_wp_page() simplification" commit).

But while all of them are equally valid models for breaking this chain,
not putting pinned pages into the swap cache in the first place is the
simplest one by far.

It's also the safest one: the reason why do_wp_page() was changed in the
first place was that getting the "can I re-use this page" wrong is so
fraught with errors.  If you do it wrong, you end up with an incorrectly
shared page.

As a result, using "page_maybe_dma_pinned()" in either do_wp_page() or
do_swap_page() would be a serious bug since it is only a (very good)
heuristic.  Re-using the page requires a hard black-and-white rule with
no room for ambiguity.

In contrast, saying "this page is very likely dma pinned, so let's not
add it to the swap cache and try to unmap it" is an obviously safe thing
to do, and if the heuristic might very rarely be a false positive, no
harm is done.

Fixes: 09854ba9 ("mm: do_wp_page() simplification")
Reported-and-tested-by: NMartin Raiber <martin@urbackup.org>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NChen Jun <chenjun102@huawei.com>
Acked-by: NXie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>
      8d757a4b
  27. 12 1月, 2021 1 次提交
    • S
      mm/rmap: always do TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS · 6d38f6ae
      由 Shakeel Butt 提交于 
      stable inclusion
from stable-5.10.4
commit dd156e3fcabff9ac2f102ae92f9b2f5dd8525e4d
bugzilla: 46903

--------------------------------

[ Upstream commit 013339df ]

Since commit 369ea824 ("mm/rmap: update to new mmu_notifier semantic
v2"), the code to check the secondary MMU's page table access bit is
broken for !(TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS) because the page is unmapped from the
secondary MMU's page table before the check.  More specifically for those
secondary MMUs which unmap the memory in
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() like kvm.

However memory reclaim is the only user of !(TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS) or the
absence of TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS and it explicitly performs the page table
access check before trying to unmap the page.  So, at worst the reclaim
will miss accesses in a very short window if we remove page table access
check in unmapping code.

There is an unintented consequence of !(TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS) for the memcg
reclaim.  From memcg reclaim the page_referenced() only account the
accesses from the processes which are in the same memcg of the target page
but the unmapping code is considering accesses from all the processes, so,
decreasing the effectiveness of memcg reclaim.

The simplest solution is to always assume TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS in unmapping
code.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201104231928.1494083-1-shakeelb@google.com
Fixes: 369ea824 ("mm/rmap: update to new mmu_notifier semantic v2")
Signed-off-by: NShakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Acked-by: NJohannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NChen Jun <chenjun102@huawei.com>
Acked-by: NXie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>
      6d38f6ae
  29. 15 11月, 2020 1 次提交
  31. 17 10月, 2020 2 次提交