linux-kernel - Re: Use higher-order pages in vmalloc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 01 Mar 2018 10:16:48 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: Use higher-order pages in vmalloc

On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 13:13 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-02-18 19:01:35, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu 22-02-18 04:22:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:59:43AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed 21-02-18 09:01:29, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > > Right.  It helps with fragmentation if we can keep higher-order
> > > > > > allocations together.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmm, wouldn't it help if we made vmalloc pages migrateable instead? That
> > > > > would help the compaction and get us to a lower fragmentation longterm
> > > > > without playing tricks in the allocation path.
> > > > 
> > > > I was wondering about that possibility.  If we want to migrate a page
> > > > then we have to shoot down the PTE across all CPUs, copy the data to the
> > > > new page, and insert the new PTE.  Copying 4kB doesn't take long; if you
> > > > have 12GB/s (current example on Wikipedia: dual-channel memory and one
> > > > DDR2-800 module per channel gives a theoretical bandwidth of 12.8GB/s)
> > > > then we should be able to copy a page in 666ns).  So there's no problem
> > > > holding a spinlock for it.
> > > > 
> > > > But we can't handle a fault in vmalloc space today.  It's handled in
> > > > arch-specific code, see vmalloc_fault() in arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > > If we're going to do this, it'll have to be something arches opt into
> > > > because I'm not taking on the job of fixing every architecture!
> > > 
> > > yes.
> > 
> > On x86, if you shoot down the PTE for the current stack, you're dead.
> > vmalloc_fault() might not even be called.  Instead we hit
> > do_double_fault(), and the manual warns extremely strongly against
> > trying to recover, and, in this case, I agree with the SDM.  If you
> > actually want this to work, there needs to be a special IPI broadcast
> > to the task in question (with appropriate synchronization) that calls
> > magic arch code that does the switcheroo.
> 
> Why cannot we use the pte swap entry trick also for vmalloc migration.
> I haven't explored this path at all, to be honest.
> 
> > Didn't someone (Christoph?) have a patch to teach the page allocator
> > to give high-order allocations if available and otherwise fall back to
> > low order?
> 
> Do you mean kvmalloc?


I sent something last year but had not finished the patch series :/

https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148233423610544&w=2