linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] change anon_vma linking to fix multi-process server scalability issue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:24:10 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	lwoodman@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>, aarcange@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] change anon_vma linking to fix multi-process server
 scalability issue

On 01/28/2010 11:37 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 00:20 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:

>> This patch changes the way anon_vmas and VMAs are linked, which
>> allows us to associate multiple anon_vmas with a VMA.  At fork
>> time, each child process gets its own anon_vmas, in which its
>> COWed pages will be instantiated.  The parents' anon_vma is also
>> linked to the VMA, because non-COWed pages could be present in
>> any of the children.
>
> any of the children?
>
> IMHO, "parent" is right. :)
> Do I miss something? Could you elaborate it?

I am talking about an anonymous page that is shared by parent
and children processes and has not been COW copied yet.

>> -void vma_adjust(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
>> +int vma_adjust(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
>>   	unsigned long end, pgoff_t pgoff, struct vm_area_struct *insert)
>>   {
>>   	struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>> @@ -542,6 +541,29 @@ again:			remove_next = 1 + (end>  next->vm_end);
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>
>> +	/*
>> +	 * When changing only vma->vm_end, we don't really need
>> +	 * anon_vma lock.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (vma->anon_vma&&  (insert || importer || start != vma->vm_start))
>> +		anon_vma = vma->anon_vma;
>> +	if (anon_vma) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Easily overlooked: when mprotect shifts the boundary,
>> +		 * make sure the expanding vma has anon_vma set if the
>> +		 * shrinking vma had, to cover any anon pages imported.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (importer&&  !importer->anon_vma) {
>> +			/* Block reverse map lookups until things are set up. */
>> +			importer->vm_flags |= VM_LOCK_RMAP;
>> +			if (anon_vma_clone(importer, vma)) {
>> +				importer->vm_flags&= ~VM_LOCK_RMAP;
>> +				return -ENOMEM;
>
> If we fail in here during progressing on next vmas in case of mprotect case 6,
> the previous vmas would become inconsistent state.

I've re-read the code, but I don't see what you are referring
to.  If vma_adjust bails out early, no VMAs will be adjusted
and all the VMAs will stay the way they were before mprotect
was called.

What am I overlooking?

>> @@ -2260,6 +2306,12 @@ struct vm_area_struct *copy_vma(struct vm_area_struct **vmap,
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>   	return new_vma;
>> +
>> + out_free_mempol:
>> +	mpol_put(pol);
>> + out_free_vma:
>> +	kmem_cache_free(vm_area_cachep, new_vma);
>> +	return NULL;
>>   }
>
>
> As I said previously, I have a concern about memory footprint.
> It adds anon_vma_chain and increases anon_vma's size for KSM.
>
> I think it will increase 3 times more than only anon_vma.
>
> Although you think it's not big in normal machine,
> it's not good in embedded system which is no anon_vma scalability issue
> and even no-swap. so I wanted you to make it configurable.

That is a fair point.  With CONFIG_SWAP=n we do not need the
anon_vma structs or anon_vma_chain structs at all.

I would be happy to integrate a patch into my series that
stubs out all of that code for CONFIG_SWAP=n, but I am going
to work on something else myself right now :)

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/