From: Hugh Dickins Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:29:13 +0000 (-0800) Subject: memcg: fix mem_cgroup_move_lists locking X-Git-Tag: v2.6.25-rc4~36 X-Git-Url: https://err.no/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=2680eed723b664d83e6181ae275fac0ec8fa05ff;p=linux-2.6 memcg: fix mem_cgroup_move_lists locking Ever since the VM_BUG_ON(page_get_page_cgroup(page)) (now Bad page state) went into page freeing, I've hit it from time to time in testing on some machines, sometimes only after many days. Recently found a machine which could usually produce it within a few hours, which got me there at last. The culprit is mem_cgroup_move_lists, whose locking is inadequate; and the arrangement of structures was such that you got page_cgroups from the lru list neatly put on to SLUB's freelist. Kamezawa-san identified the same hole independently. The main problem was that it was missing the lock_page_cgroup it needs to safely page_get_page_cgroup; but it's tricky to go beyond that too, and I couldn't do it with SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU as I'd expected. See the code for comments on the constraints. This patch immediately gets replaced by a simpler one from Hirokazu-san; but is it just foolish pride that tells me to put this one on record, in case we need to come back to it later? Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins Cc: David Rientjes Cc: Balbir Singh Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Hirokazu Takahashi Cc: YAMAMOTO Takashi Cc: Paul Menage Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 66d0e84cef..dcbe30aad1 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -277,6 +277,11 @@ static void lock_page_cgroup(struct page *page) bit_spin_lock(PAGE_CGROUP_LOCK_BIT, &page->page_cgroup); } +static int try_lock_page_cgroup(struct page *page) +{ + return bit_spin_trylock(PAGE_CGROUP_LOCK_BIT, &page->page_cgroup); +} + static void unlock_page_cgroup(struct page *page) { bit_spin_unlock(PAGE_CGROUP_LOCK_BIT, &page->page_cgroup); @@ -348,17 +353,49 @@ int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *mem) void mem_cgroup_move_lists(struct page *page, bool active) { struct page_cgroup *pc; + struct mem_cgroup *mem; struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz; unsigned long flags; - pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page); - if (!pc) + /* + * We cannot lock_page_cgroup while holding zone's lru_lock, + * because other holders of lock_page_cgroup can be interrupted + * with an attempt to rotate_reclaimable_page. But we cannot + * safely get to page_cgroup without it, so just try_lock it: + * mem_cgroup_isolate_pages allows for page left on wrong list. + */ + if (!try_lock_page_cgroup(page)) return; - mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc); - spin_lock_irqsave(&mz->lru_lock, flags); - __mem_cgroup_move_lists(pc, active); - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mz->lru_lock, flags); + /* + * Now page_cgroup is stable, but we cannot acquire mz->lru_lock + * while holding it, because mem_cgroup_force_empty_list does the + * reverse. Get a hold on the mem_cgroup before unlocking, so that + * the zoneinfo remains stable, then take mz->lru_lock; then check + * that page still points to pc and pc (even if freed and reassigned + * to that same page meanwhile) still points to the same mem_cgroup. + * Then we know mz still points to the right spinlock, so it's safe + * to move_lists (page->page_cgroup might be reset while we do so, but + * that doesn't matter: pc->page is stable till we drop mz->lru_lock). + * We're being a little naughty not to try_lock_page_cgroup again + * inside there, but we are safe, aren't we? Aren't we? Whistle... + */ + pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page); + if (pc) { + mem = pc->mem_cgroup; + mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc); + css_get(&mem->css); + + unlock_page_cgroup(page); + + spin_lock_irqsave(&mz->lru_lock, flags); + if (page_get_page_cgroup(page) == pc && pc->mem_cgroup == mem) + __mem_cgroup_move_lists(pc, active); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mz->lru_lock, flags); + + css_put(&mem->css); + } else + unlock_page_cgroup(page); } /*