Re: [PATCH v5] mm/page_alloc: only update lowmem_reserve_ratio on sysctl write
Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 04:27:34PM +0800, Jianlin Shi wrote: > lowmem_reserve_ratio_sysctl_handler() ignores the return value of > proc_dointvec_minmax() and always calls setup_per_zone_lowmem_reserve(), > even for read operations. > > Fix three issues: > > 1. Propagate errors from proc_dointvec_minmax() instead of always > returning success. For example, writing non-integer garbage to the > sysctl now returns an error instead of silently succeeding with > unchanged values. > > 2. Only call setup_per_zone_lowmem_reserve() when the sysctl is > actually written, matching the write-only refresh pattern of > min_free_kbytes and watermark_scale_factor handlers. > > 3. On write, parse into a temporary ratio[] array and only copy into > sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio[] and refresh derived state after the > full vector is validated. This avoids leaving the ratio array > partially updated while skipping setup when proc_dointvec_minmax() > returns an error on a later element (suggested by Andrew Morton). > > Drop the manual "< 1 -> 0" sanitization loop and set .extra1 = > SYSCTL_ZERO on the ctl_table entry so proc_dointvec_minmax() enforces > the minimum on write; negative values now return -EINVAL instead of > being silently coerced to 0 (suggested by Vlastimil Babka). > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/ > > Signed-off-by: Jianlin Shi <[email protected]> > --- > Changes in v5: > - Size temporary ratio[] with ARRAY_SIZE(sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio) > (Andrew Morton) > > Changes in v4: > - Parse writes into a temporary ratio[] array; commit and setup only on > full success (Andrew Morton) > - Update handler comment: proc_dointvec_minmax() and write-only setup > > Changes in v3: > - Rewrite commit log to focus on the two tangible fixes as suggested by > Johannes Weiner. > > Changes in v2: > - Add .extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO to ctl_table entry > - Remove manual sanitization loop; negative writes now return -EINVAL > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/ > > mm/page_alloc.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index 0387d2afd535..51f35e44132a 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -6673,8 +6673,8 @@ static int sysctl_min_slab_ratio_sysctl_handler(const struct ctl_table *table, i > > /* > * lowmem_reserve_ratio_sysctl_handler - just a wrapper around > - * proc_dointvec() so that we can call setup_per_zone_lowmem_reserve() > - * whenever sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio changes. > + * proc_dointvec_minmax() so that we can call > + * setup_per_zone_lowmem_reserve() when the sysctl is written. > * > * The reserve ratio obviously has absolutely no relation with the > * minimum watermarks. The lowmem reserve ratio can only make sense > @@ -6683,16 +6683,23 @@ static int sysctl_min_slab_ratio_sysctl_handler(const struct ctl_table *table, i > static int lowmem_reserve_ratio_sysctl_handler(const struct ctl_table *table, > int write, void *buffer, size_t *length, loff_t *ppos) > { > - int i; > + struct ctl_table tmp = *table; > + int ratio[ARRAY_SIZE(sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio)]; > + int rc; > > - proc_dointvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, length, ppos); > + if (!write) > + return proc_dointvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, length, ppos); > > - for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_ZONES; i++) { > - if (sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio[i] < 1) > - sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio[i] = 0; > - } This could use a comment. How about: /* * proc_dointvec_max() works incrementally. Use a buffer * and only set the values if all of them parse cleanly. */ > + memcpy(ratio, sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio, sizeof(ratio)); > + tmp.data = ratio; > > + rc = proc_dointvec_minmax(&tmp, write, buffer, length, ppos); > + if (rc) > + return rc; > + > + memcpy(sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio, ratio, sizeof(ratio)); > setup_per_zone_lowmem_reserve(); But otherwise, looks good to me now. Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>