Skip to content
Commit 8ba00bb6 authored by Joonsoo Kim's avatar Joonsoo Kim Committed by Linus Torvalds
Browse files

slub: consider pfmemalloc_match() in get_partial_node()



get_partial() is currently not checking pfmemalloc_match() meaning that
it is possible for pfmemalloc pages to leak to non-pfmemalloc users.
This is a problem in the following situation.  Assume that there is a
request from normal allocation and there are no objects in the per-cpu
cache and no node-partial slab.

In this case, slab_alloc enters the slow path and new_slab_objects() is
called which may return a PFMEMALLOC page.  As the current user is not
allowed to access PFMEMALLOC page, deactivate_slab() is called
([5091b74a: mm: slub: optimise the SLUB fast path to avoid pfmemalloc
checks]) and returns an object from PFMEMALLOC page.

Next time, when we get another request from normal allocation,
slab_alloc() enters the slow-path and calls new_slab_objects().  In
new_slab_objects(), we call get_partial() and get a partial slab which
was just deactivated but is a pfmemalloc page.  We extract one object
from it and re-deactivate.

  "deactivate -> re-get in get_partial -> re-deactivate" occures repeatedly.

As a result, access to PFMEMALLOC page is not properly restricted and it
can cause a performance degradation due to frequent deactivation.
deactivation frequently.

This patch changes get_partial_node() to take pfmemalloc_match() into
account and prevents the "deactivate -> re-get in get_partial()
scenario.  Instead, new_slab() is called.

Signed-off-by: default avatarJoonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Acked-by: default avatarDavid Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent d014dc2e
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment