License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license
Many source files in the tree are missing licensing information, which
makes it harder for compliance tools to determine the correct license.
By default all files without license information are under the default
license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2.
Update the files which contain no license information with the 'GPL-2.0'
SPDX license identifier. The SPDX identifier is a legally binding
shorthand, which can be used instead of the full boiler plate text.
This patch is based on work done by Thomas Gleixner and Kate Stewart and
Philippe Ombredanne.
How this work was done:
Patches were generated and checked against linux-4.14-rc6 for a subset of
the use cases:
- file had no licensing information it it.
- file was a */uapi/* one with no licensing information in it,
- file was a */uapi/* one with existing licensing information,
Further patches will be generated in subsequent months to fix up cases
where non-standard license headers were used, and references to license
had to be inferred by heuristics based on keywords.
The analysis to determine which SPDX License Identifier to be applied to
a file was done in a spreadsheet of side by side results from of the
output of two independent scanners (ScanCode & Windriver) producing SPDX
tag:value files created by Philippe Ombredanne. Philippe prepared the
base worksheet, and did an initial spot review of a few 1000 files.
The 4.13 kernel was the starting point of the analysis with 60,537 files
assessed. Kate Stewart did a file by file comparison of the scanner
results in the spreadsheet to determine which SPDX license identifier(s)
to be applied to the file. She confirmed any determination that was not
immediately clear with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Criteria used to select files for SPDX license identifier tagging was:
- Files considered eligible had to be source code files.
- Make and config files were included as candidates if they contained >5
lines of source
- File already had some variant of a license header in it (even if <5
lines).
All documentation files were explicitly excluded.
The following heuristics were used to determine which SPDX license
identifiers to apply.
- when both scanners couldn't find any license traces, file was
considered to have no license information in it, and the top level
COPYING file license applied.
For non */uapi/* files that summary was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 11139
and resulted in the first patch in this series.
If that file was a */uapi/* path one, it was "GPL-2.0 WITH
Linux-syscall-note" otherwise it was "GPL-2.0". Results of that was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 930
and resulted in the second patch in this series.
- if a file had some form of licensing information in it, and was one
of the */uapi/* ones, it was denoted with the Linux-syscall-note if
any GPL family license was found in the file or had no licensing in
it (per prior point). Results summary:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 270
GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 169
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-2-Clause) 21
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 17
LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 15
GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 14
((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 5
LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 4
LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT) 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT) 1
and that resulted in the third patch in this series.
- when the two scanners agreed on the detected license(s), that became
the concluded license(s).
- when there was disagreement between the two scanners (one detected a
license but the other didn't, or they both detected different
licenses) a manual inspection of the file occurred.
- In most cases a manual inspection of the information in the file
resulted in a clear resolution of the license that should apply (and
which scanner probably needed to revisit its heuristics).
- When it was not immediately clear, the license identifier was
confirmed with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
- If there was any question as to the appropriate license identifier,
the file was flagged for further research and to be revisited later
in time.
In total, over 70 hours of logged manual review was done on the
spreadsheet to determine the SPDX license identifiers to apply to the
source files by Kate, Philippe, Thomas and, in some cases, confirmation
by lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Kate also obtained a third independent scan of the 4.13 code base from
FOSSology, and compared selected files where the other two scanners
disagreed against that SPDX file, to see if there was new insights. The
Windriver scanner is based on an older version of FOSSology in part, so
they are related.
Thomas did random spot checks in about 500 files from the spreadsheets
for the uapi headers and agreed with SPDX license identifier in the
files he inspected. For the non-uapi files Thomas did random spot checks
in about 15000 files.
In initial set of patches against 4.14-rc6, 3 files were found to have
copy/paste license identifier errors, and have been fixed to reflect the
correct identifier.
Additionally Philippe spent 10 hours this week doing a detailed manual
inspection and review of the 12,461 patched files from the initial patch
version early this week with:
- a full scancode scan run, collecting the matched texts, detected
license ids and scores
- reviewing anything where there was a license detected (about 500+
files) to ensure that the applied SPDX license was correct
- reviewing anything where there was no detection but the patch license
was not GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note to ensure that the applied
SPDX license was correct
This produced a worksheet with 20 files needing minor correction. This
worksheet was then exported into 3 different .csv files for the
different types of files to be modified.
These .csv files were then reviewed by Greg. Thomas wrote a script to
parse the csv files and add the proper SPDX tag to the file, in the
format that the file expected. This script was further refined by Greg
based on the output to detect more types of files automatically and to
distinguish between header and source .c files (which need different
comment types.) Finally Greg ran the script using the .csv files to
generate the patches.
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2017-11-01 15:07:57 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-10-31 17:12:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-07-31 09:28:31 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2011-10-31 17:12:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-08-14 17:40:27 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-05-19 17:09:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-19 17:09:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-05-19 17:09:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-08-14 17:40:27 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:44 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-24 09:06:45 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:44 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-10-24 09:06:45 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:44 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-24 09:06:45 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:44 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-06 18:03:43 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-16 16:04:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-12 14:37:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-20 21:01:20 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:43 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-16 16:04:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-16 16:04:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
percpucounter: Optimize __percpu_counter_add a bit through the use of this_cpu() options.
The this_cpu_* options can be used to optimize __percpu_counter_add a bit. Avoids
some address arithmetic and saves 12 bytes.
Before:
00000000000001d3 <__percpu_counter_add>:
1d3: 55 push %rbp
1d4: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
1d7: 41 55 push %r13
1d9: 41 54 push %r12
1db: 53 push %rbx
1dc: 48 89 fb mov %rdi,%rbx
1df: 48 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%rsp
1e3: 4c 8b 67 30 mov 0x30(%rdi),%r12
1e7: 65 4c 03 24 25 00 00 add %gs:0x0,%r12
1ee: 00 00
1f0: 4d 63 2c 24 movslq (%r12),%r13
1f4: 48 63 c2 movslq %edx,%rax
1f7: 49 01 f5 add %rsi,%r13
1fa: 49 39 c5 cmp %rax,%r13
1fd: 7d 0a jge 209 <__percpu_counter_add+0x36>
1ff: f7 da neg %edx
201: 48 63 d2 movslq %edx,%rdx
204: 49 39 d5 cmp %rdx,%r13
207: 7f 1e jg 227 <__percpu_counter_add+0x54>
209: 48 89 df mov %rbx,%rdi
20c: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 211 <__percpu_counter_add+0x3e>
211: 4c 01 6b 18 add %r13,0x18(%rbx)
215: 48 89 df mov %rbx,%rdi
218: 41 c7 04 24 00 00 00 movl $0x0,(%r12)
21f: 00
220: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 225 <__percpu_counter_add+0x52>
225: eb 04 jmp 22b <__percpu_counter_add+0x58>
227: 45 89 2c 24 mov %r13d,(%r12)
22b: 5b pop %rbx
22c: 5b pop %rbx
22d: 41 5c pop %r12
22f: 41 5d pop %r13
231: c9 leaveq
232: c3 retq
After:
00000000000001d3 <__percpu_counter_add>:
1d3: 55 push %rbp
1d4: 48 63 ca movslq %edx,%rcx
1d7: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
1da: 41 54 push %r12
1dc: 53 push %rbx
1dd: 48 89 fb mov %rdi,%rbx
1e0: 48 8b 47 30 mov 0x30(%rdi),%rax
1e4: 65 44 8b 20 mov %gs:(%rax),%r12d
1e8: 4d 63 e4 movslq %r12d,%r12
1eb: 49 01 f4 add %rsi,%r12
1ee: 49 39 cc cmp %rcx,%r12
1f1: 7d 0a jge 1fd <__percpu_counter_add+0x2a>
1f3: f7 da neg %edx
1f5: 48 63 d2 movslq %edx,%rdx
1f8: 49 39 d4 cmp %rdx,%r12
1fb: 7f 21 jg 21e <__percpu_counter_add+0x4b>
1fd: 48 89 df mov %rbx,%rdi
200: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 205 <__percpu_counter_add+0x32>
205: 4c 01 63 18 add %r12,0x18(%rbx)
209: 48 8b 43 30 mov 0x30(%rbx),%rax
20d: 48 89 df mov %rbx,%rdi
210: 65 c7 00 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,%gs:(%rax)
217: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 21c <__percpu_counter_add+0x49>
21c: eb 04 jmp 222 <__percpu_counter_add+0x4f>
21e: 65 44 89 20 mov %r12d,%gs:(%rax)
222: 5b pop %rbx
223: 41 5c pop %r12
225: c9 leaveq
226: c3 retq
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
2010-12-06 11:16:19 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-15 20:11:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-16 16:04:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-01-16 15:26:48 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-16 16:04:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-01-14 17:56:42 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-16 16:04:39 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-20 21:01:20 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-23 02:05:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-08-06 23:23:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-11-09 01:20:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pcpcntrs: fix dying cpu summation race
In commit f689054aace2 ("percpu_counter: add percpu_counter_sum_all
interface") a race condition between a cpu dying and
percpu_counter_sum() iterating online CPUs was identified. The
solution was to iterate all possible CPUs for summation via
percpu_counter_sum_all().
We recently had a percpu_counter_sum() call in XFS trip over this
same race condition and it fired a debug assert because the
filesystem was unmounting and the counter *should* be zero just
before we destroy it. That was reported here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230314090649.326642-1-yebin@huaweicloud.com/
likely as a result of running generic/648 which exercises
filesystems in the presence of CPU online/offline events.
The solution to use percpu_counter_sum_all() is an awful one. We
use percpu counters and percpu_counter_sum() for accurate and
reliable threshold detection for space management, so a summation
race condition during these operations can result in overcommit of
available space and that may result in filesystem shutdowns.
As percpu_counter_sum_all() iterates all possible CPUs rather than
just those online or even those present, the mask can include CPUs
that aren't even installed in the machine, or in the case of
machines that can hot-plug CPU capable nodes, even have physical
sockets present in the machine.
Fundamentally, this race condition is caused by the CPU being
offlined being removed from the cpu_online_mask before the notifier
that cleans up per-cpu state is run. Hence percpu_counter_sum() will
not sum the count for a cpu currently being taken offline,
regardless of whether the notifier has run or not. This is
the root cause of the bug.
The percpu counter notifier iterates all the registered counters,
locks the counter and moves the percpu count to the global sum.
This is serialised against other operations that move the percpu
counter to the global sum as well as percpu_counter_sum() operations
that sum the percpu counts while holding the counter lock.
Hence the notifier is safe to run concurrently with sum operations,
and the only thing we actually need to care about is that
percpu_counter_sum() iterates dying CPUs. That's trivial to do,
and when there are no CPUs dying, it has no addition overhead except
for a cpumask_or() operation.
This change makes percpu_counter_sum() always do the right thing in
the presence of CPU hot unplug events and makes
percpu_counter_sum_all() unnecessary. This, in turn, means that
filesystems like XFS, ext4, and btrfs don't have to work out when
they should use percpu_counter_sum() vs percpu_counter_sum_all() in
their space accounting algorithms
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
2023-03-15 17:31:02 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-11-09 01:20:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-03-15 17:31:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pcpcntrs: fix dying cpu summation race
In commit f689054aace2 ("percpu_counter: add percpu_counter_sum_all
interface") a race condition between a cpu dying and
percpu_counter_sum() iterating online CPUs was identified. The
solution was to iterate all possible CPUs for summation via
percpu_counter_sum_all().
We recently had a percpu_counter_sum() call in XFS trip over this
same race condition and it fired a debug assert because the
filesystem was unmounting and the counter *should* be zero just
before we destroy it. That was reported here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230314090649.326642-1-yebin@huaweicloud.com/
likely as a result of running generic/648 which exercises
filesystems in the presence of CPU online/offline events.
The solution to use percpu_counter_sum_all() is an awful one. We
use percpu counters and percpu_counter_sum() for accurate and
reliable threshold detection for space management, so a summation
race condition during these operations can result in overcommit of
available space and that may result in filesystem shutdowns.
As percpu_counter_sum_all() iterates all possible CPUs rather than
just those online or even those present, the mask can include CPUs
that aren't even installed in the machine, or in the case of
machines that can hot-plug CPU capable nodes, even have physical
sockets present in the machine.
Fundamentally, this race condition is caused by the CPU being
offlined being removed from the cpu_online_mask before the notifier
that cleans up per-cpu state is run. Hence percpu_counter_sum() will
not sum the count for a cpu currently being taken offline,
regardless of whether the notifier has run or not. This is
the root cause of the bug.
The percpu counter notifier iterates all the registered counters,
locks the counter and moves the percpu count to the global sum.
This is serialised against other operations that move the percpu
counter to the global sum as well as percpu_counter_sum() operations
that sum the percpu counts while holding the counter lock.
Hence the notifier is safe to run concurrently with sum operations,
and the only thing we actually need to care about is that
percpu_counter_sum() iterates dying CPUs. That's trivial to do,
and when there are no CPUs dying, it has no addition overhead except
for a cpumask_or() operation.
This change makes percpu_counter_sum() always do the right thing in
the presence of CPU hot unplug events and makes
percpu_counter_sum_all() unnecessary. This, in turn, means that
filesystems like XFS, ext4, and btrfs don't have to work out when
they should use percpu_counter_sum() vs percpu_counter_sum_all() in
their space accounting algorithms
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
2023-03-15 17:31:02 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-03-15 17:31:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-11-09 01:20:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:23:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-23 07:06:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:41:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-03 15:50:00 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:41:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-03 15:50:00 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:41:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-03 15:50:00 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:41:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-03 15:50:00 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-01-20 06:34:22 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-01-20 06:34:22 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2014-09-08 09:51:29 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:41:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2016-11-03 15:50:00 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:04 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-29 07:39:34 +10:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:04 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-29 07:39:34 +10:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:04 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-29 07:39:34 +10:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:04 -07:00
|
|
|
|
shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)
Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking
around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to
overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs
huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add.
I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of
dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it
even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed.
Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it.
I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than
the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice
when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with
128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when
nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum
across CPUs still has to be done, while locked.
Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well
as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and
__percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to
num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held
across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2023-09-29 20:42:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-11 21:40:09 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)
Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking
around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to
overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs
huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add.
I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of
dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it
even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed.
Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it.
I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than
the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice
when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with
128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when
nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum
across CPUs still has to be done, while locked.
Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well
as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and
__percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to
num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held
across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2023-09-29 20:42:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-11 21:40:09 -07:00
|
|
|
|
shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)
Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking
around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to
overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs
huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add.
I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of
dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it
even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed.
Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it.
I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than
the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice
when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with
128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when
nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum
across CPUs still has to be done, while locked.
Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well
as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and
__percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to
num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held
across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2023-09-29 20:42:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-11 21:40:09 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)
Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking
around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to
overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs
huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add.
I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of
dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it
even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed.
Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it.
I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than
the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice
when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with
128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when
nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum
across CPUs still has to be done, while locked.
Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well
as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and
__percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to
num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held
across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2023-09-29 20:42:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-11 21:40:09 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)
Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking
around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to
overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs
huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add.
I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of
dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it
even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed.
Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it.
I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than
the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice
when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with
128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when
nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum
across CPUs still has to be done, while locked.
Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well
as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and
__percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to
num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held
across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2023-09-29 20:42:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-11 21:40:09 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)
Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking
around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to
overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs
huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add.
I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of
dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it
even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed.
Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it.
I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than
the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice
when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with
128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when
nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum
across CPUs still has to be done, while locked.
Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well
as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and
__percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to
num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held
across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2023-09-29 20:42:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-11 21:40:09 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)
Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking
around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to
overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs
huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add.
I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of
dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it
even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed.
Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it.
I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than
the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice
when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with
128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when
nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum
across CPUs still has to be done, while locked.
Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well
as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and
__percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to
num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held
across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2023-09-29 20:42:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-11 21:40:09 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shmem,percpu_counter: add _limited_add(fbc, limit, amount)
Percpu counter's compare and add are separate functions: without locking
around them (which would defeat their purpose), it has been possible to
overflow the intended limit. Imagine all the other CPUs fallocating tmpfs
huge pages to the limit, in between this CPU's compare and its add.
I have not seen reports of that happening; but tmpfs's recent addition of
dquot_alloc_block_nodirty() in between the compare and the add makes it
even more likely, and I'd be uncomfortable to leave it unfixed.
Introduce percpu_counter_limited_add(fbc, limit, amount) to prevent it.
I believe this implementation is correct, and slightly more efficient than
the combination of compare and add (taking the lock once rather than twice
when nearing full - the last 128MiB of a tmpfs volume on a machine with
128 CPUs and 4KiB pages); but it does beg for a better design - when
nearing full, there is no new batching, but the costly percpu counter sum
across CPUs still has to be done, while locked.
Follow __percpu_counter_sum()'s example, including cpu_dying_mask as well
as cpu_online_mask: but shouldn't __percpu_counter_compare() and
__percpu_counter_limited_add() then be adding a num_dying_cpus() to
num_online_cpus(), when they calculate the maximum which could be held
across CPUs? But the times when it matters would be vanishingly rare.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/bb817848-2d19-bcc8-39ca-ea179af0f0b4@google.com
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2023-09-29 20:42:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-03 15:50:00 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-15 23:39:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
