linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RCFv2 1/7] mm: introduce and use PageOffline()

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:35:57 -0400
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RCFv2 1/7] mm: introduce and use PageOffline()

Hi Dave,

A few comments below:

> +	for (i = 0; i < PAGES_PER_SECTION; i++) {

Performance wise, this is unfortunate that we have to add this loop for every hot-plug. But, I do like the finer hot-plug granularity that you achieve, and do not have a better suggestion how to avoid this loop. What I also like, is that you call init_single_page() only one time.

> +		unsigned long pfn = phys_start_pfn + i;
> +		struct page *page;
> +		if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> +			continue;
> +		page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> +
> +		/* dummy zone, the actual one will be set when onlining pages */
> +		init_single_page(page, pfn, ZONE_NORMAL, nid);

Is there a reason to use ZONE_NORMAL as a dummy zone? May be define some non-existent zone-id for that? I.e. __MAX_NR_ZONES? That might trigger some debugging checks of course..

In init_single_page() if WANT_PAGE_VIRTUAL is defined it is used to set virtual address.  Which is broken if we do not belong to ZONE_NORMAL.

1186	if (!is_highmem_idx(zone))
1187		set_page_address(page, __va(pfn << PAGE_SHIFT));

Otherwise, if you want to keep ZONE_NORMAL here, you could add a new function:

#ifdef WANT_PAGE_VIRTUAL
static void set_page_virtual(struct page *page, and enum zone_type zone)
{
	/* The shift won't overflow because ZONE_NORMAL is below 4G. */
	if (!is_highmem_idx(zone))
		set_page_address(page, __va(pfn << PAGE_SHIFT));
}
#else
static inline void set_page_virtual(struct page *page, and enum zone_type zone)
{}
#endif

And call it from init_single_page(), and from __meminit memmap_init_zone() in "context == MEMMAP_HOTPLUG" if case.

>
> -static void __meminit __init_single_page(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn,
> +extern void __meminit init_single_page(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn,

I've seen it in other places, but what is the point of having "extern" function in .c file?

>  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
> -/* Mark all memory sections within the pfn range as online */
> +static bool all_pages_in_section_offline(unsigned long section_nr)
> +{
> +	unsigned long pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(section_nr);
> +	struct page *page;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < PAGES_PER_SECTION; i++, pfn++) {
> +		if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> +		if (!PageOffline(page))
> +			return false;
> +	}
> +	return true;
> +}

Perhaps we could use some counter to keep track of number of subsections that are currently offlined? If section covers 128M of memory, and offline/online is 4M granularity, there are up-to 32 subsections in a section, and thus we need 5-bits to count them. I'm not sure if there is a space in mem_section for this counter. But, that would eliminate the loop above.

Thank you,
Pavel