linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v5 02/13] mm: handling Non-LRU pages returned by vm_normal

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]

Message-ID: <ae6c6566-4c9b-0547-c2e4-3df7cb2bed33@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 11:51:34 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>, jgg@...dia.com
Cc:     Felix.Kuehling@....com, 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,
        hch@....de, jglisse@...hat.com, apopple@...dia.com,
        willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/13] mm: handling Non-LRU pages returned by
 vm_normal_pages

On 31.05.22 22:00, Alex Sierra wrote:
> With DEVICE_COHERENT, we'll soon have vm_normal_pages() return
> device-managed anonymous pages that are not LRU pages. Although they
> behave like normal pages for purposes of mapping in CPU page, and for
> COW. They do not support LRU lists, NUMA migration or THP.
> 
> We also introduced a FOLL_LRU flag that adds the same behaviour to
> follow_page and related APIs, to allow callers to specify that they
> expect to put pages on an LRU list.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>
> Acked-by: Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>
> ---
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 2 +-
>  include/linux/mm.h | 3 ++-
>  mm/gup.c           | 6 +++++-
>  mm/huge_memory.c   | 2 +-
>  mm/khugepaged.c    | 9 ++++++---
>  mm/ksm.c           | 6 +++---
>  mm/madvise.c       | 4 ++--
>  mm/memory.c        | 9 ++++++++-
>  mm/mempolicy.c     | 2 +-
>  mm/migrate.c       | 4 ++--
>  mm/mlock.c         | 2 +-
>  mm/mprotect.c      | 2 +-
>  12 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index 2d04e3470d4c..2dd8c8a66924 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -1792,7 +1792,7 @@ static struct page *can_gather_numa_stats(pte_t pte, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, pte);
> -	if (!page)
> +	if (!page || is_zone_device_page(page))
>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	if (PageReserved(page))
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index bc8f326be0ce..d3f43908ff8d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ struct vm_operations_struct {
>  #endif
>  	/*
>  	 * Called by vm_normal_page() for special PTEs to find the
> -	 * page for @addr.  This is useful if the default behavior
> +	 * page for @addr. This is useful if the default behavior
>  	 * (using pte_page()) would not find the correct page.
>  	 */
>  	struct page *(*find_special_page)(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> @@ -2934,6 +2934,7 @@ struct page *follow_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>  #define FOLL_NUMA	0x200	/* force NUMA hinting page fault */
>  #define FOLL_MIGRATION	0x400	/* wait for page to replace migration entry */
>  #define FOLL_TRIED	0x800	/* a retry, previous pass started an IO */
> +#define FOLL_LRU        0x1000  /* return only LRU (anon or page cache) */

Does that statement hold for special pages like the shared zeropage?

Also, this flag is only valid for in-kernel follow_page() but not for
the ordinary GUP interfaces. What are the semantics there? Is it fenced?


I really wonder if you should simply similarly teach the handful of
users of follow_page() to just special case these pages ... sounds
cleaner to me then adding flags with unclear semantics. Alternatively,
properly document what that flag is actually doing and where it applies.


I know, there was discussion on ... sorry for jumping in now, but this
doesn't look clean to me yet.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb