Re: [PATCH] mm: fix list corruptions on shmem shrinklist
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thu Aug 03 2017 - 19:53:15 EST
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:25:46 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Where is this INIT_LIST_HEAD()?
> I think it's this one:
> in shmem_unused_huge_shrink().
> > I'm not sure I'm understanding this. AFAICT all the list operations to
> > which you refer are synchronized under spin_lock(&sbinfo->shrinklist_lock)?
> No, notice how shmem_unused_huge_shrink() does the
> list_move(&info->shrinklist, &to_remove);
> list_move(&info->shrinklist, &list);
> to move to (two different) private lists under the shrinklist_lock,
> but once it is on that private "list/to_remove" list, it is then
> accessed outside the locked region.
So the code is using sbinfo->shrinklist_lock to protect
sbinfo->shrinklist AND to protect all the per-inode info->shrinklist's.
Except it didn't get the coverage complete.
Presumably it's too expensive to extend sbinfo->shrinklist_lock
coverage in shmem_unused_huge_shrink() (or is it? - this is huge
pages). An alternative would be to add a new
shmem_inode_info.shrinklist_lock whose mandate is to protect
> Honestly, I don't love this situation, or the patch, but I think the
> patch is likely the right thing to do.
Well, we could view the premature droppage of sbinfo->shrinklist_lock
in shmem_unused_huge_shrink() to be a performance optimization and put
some big fat comments in there explaining what's going on. But it's
tricky and it's not known that such an optimization is warranted.