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  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:   Thu, 9 Sep 2021 00:02:10 -0400
From:   Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@....com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     "Sierra Guiza, Alejandro (Alex)" <alex.sierra@....com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        rcampbell@...dia.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, jgg@...dia.com,
        jglisse@...hat.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/14] mm: add iomem vma selection for memory migration

Am 2021-09-02 um 4:18 a.m. schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:40:43AM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
>>>>> It looks like I'm totally misunderstanding what you are adding here
>>>>> then.  Why do we need any special treatment at all for memory that
>>>>> has normal struct pages and is part of the direct kernel map?
>>>> The pages are like normal memory for purposes of mapping them in CPU
>>>> page tables and for coherent access from the CPU.
>>> That's the user page tables.  What about the kernel direct map?
>>> If there is a normal kernel struct page backing there really should
>>> be no need for the pgmap.
>> I'm not sure. The physical address ranges are in the UEFI system address
>> map as special-purpose memory. Does Linux create the struct pages and
>> kernel direct map for that without a pgmap call? I didn't see that last
>> time I went digging through that code.
> So doing some googling finds a patch from Dan that claims to hand EFI
> special purpose memory to the device dax driver.  But when I try to
> follow the version that got merged it looks it is treated simply as an
> MMIO region to be claimed by drivers, which would not get a struct page.
>
> Dan, did I misunderstand how E820_TYPE_SOFT_RESERVED works?
>
>>>> From an application
>>>> perspective, we want file-backed and anonymous mappings to be able to
>>>> use DEVICE_PUBLIC pages with coherent CPU access. The goal is to
>>>> optimize performance for GPU heavy workloads while minimizing the need
>>>> to migrate data back-and-forth between system memory and device memory.
>>> I don't really understand that part.  file backed pages are always
>>> allocated by the file system using the pagecache helpers, that is
>>> using the page allocator.  Anonymouns memory also always comes from
>>> the page allocator.
>> I'm coming at this from my experience with DEVICE_PRIVATE. Both
>> anonymous and file-backed pages should be migrateable to DEVICE_PRIVATE
>> memory by the migrate_vma_* helpers for more efficient access by our
>> GPU. (*) It's part of the basic premise of HMM as I understand it. I
>> would expect the same thing to work for DEVICE_PUBLIC memory.
> Ok, so you want to migrate to and from them.  Not use DEVICE_PUBLIC
> for the actual page cache pages.  That maks a lot more sense.
>
>> I see DEVICE_PUBLIC as an improved version of DEVICE_PRIVATE that allows
>> the CPU to map the device memory coherently to minimize the need for
>> migrations when CPU and GPU access the same memory concurrently or
>> alternatingly. But we're not going as far as putting that memory
>> entirely under the management of the Linux memory manager and VM
>> subsystem. Our (and HPE's) system architects decided that this memory is
>> not suitable to be used like regular NUMA system memory by the Linux
>> memory manager.
> So yes.  It is a Memory Mapped I/O region, which unlike the PCIe BARs
> that people typically deal with is fully cache coherent.  I think this
> does make more sense as a description.
>
> But to go back to what start this discussion:  If these are memory
> mapped I/O pfn_valid should generally not return true for them.

As I understand it, pfn_valid should be true for any pfn that's part of
the kernel's physical memory map, i.e. is returned by page_to_pfn or
works with pfn_to_page. Both the hmm_range_fault and the migrate_vma_*
APIs use pfns to refer to regular system memory and ZONE_DEVICE pages
(even DEVICE_PRIVATE). Therefore I believe pfn_valid should be true for
ZONE_DEVICE pages as well.

Regards,
  Felix


>
> And as you already pointed out in reply to Alex we need to tighten the
> selection criteria one way or another.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists