| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090818111125.GA20217@localhost>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:11:25 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Yu, Wilfred" <wilfred.yu@...el.com>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages?
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:00:48PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 05:52:47PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:31:19 +0800
> >> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:17:34PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:34:38 +0800
> >> > > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Minchan,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:33:54PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >> > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >> > > > > >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:00AM +0800, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 05:09:55AM +0800, Jeff Dike wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > >> Side question -
> >> > > > > >> > >> Is there a good reason for this to be in shrink_active_list()
> >> > > > > >> > >> as opposed to __isolate_lru_page?
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page, NULL))) {
> >> > > > > >> > >> putback_lru_page(page);
> >> > > > > >> > >> continue;
> >> > > > > >> > >> }
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> Maybe we want to minimize the amount of code under the lru lock or
> >> > > > > >> > >> avoid duplicate logic in the isolate_page functions.
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > I guess the quick test means to avoid the expensive page_referenced()
> >> > > > > >> > > call that follows it. But that should be mostly one shot cost - the
> >> > > > > >> > > unevictable pages are unlikely to cycle in active/inactive list again
> >> > > > > >> > > and again.
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > Please read what putback_lru_page does.
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > It moves the page onto the unevictable list, so that
> >> > > > > >> > it will not end up in this scan again.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Yes it does. I said 'mostly' because there is a small hole that an
> >> > > > > >> unevictable page may be scanned but still not moved to unevictable
> >> > > > > >> list: when a page is mapped in two places, the first pte has the
> >> > > > > >> referenced bit set, the _second_ VMA has VM_LOCKED bit set, then
> >> > > > > >> page_referenced() will return 1 and shrink_page_list() will move it
> >> > > > > >> into active list instead of unevictable list. Shall we fix this rare
> >> > > > > >> case?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I think it's not a big deal.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Maybe, otherwise I should bring up this issue long time before :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > As you mentioned, it's rare case so there would be few pages in active
> >> > > > > list instead of unevictable list.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > When next time to scan comes, we can try to move the pages into
> >> > > > > unevictable list, again.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Will PG_mlocked be set by then? Otherwise the situation is not likely
> >> > > > to change and the VM_LOCKED pages may circulate in active/inactive
> >> > > > list for countless times.
> >> > >
> >> > > PG_mlocked is not important in that case.
> >> > > Important thing is VM_LOCKED vma.
> >> > > I think below annotaion can help you to understand my point. :)
> >> >
> >> > Hmm, it looks like pages under VM_LOCKED vma is guaranteed to have
> >> > PG_mlocked set, and so will be caught by page_evictable(). Is it?
> >>
> >> No. I am sorry for making my point not clear.
> >> I meant following as.
> >> When the next time to scan,
> >>
> >> shrink_page_list
> > ->
> > referenced = page_referenced(page, 1,
> > sc->mem_cgroup, &vm_flags);
> > /* In active use or really unfreeable? Activate it. */
> > if (sc->order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> > referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page))
> > goto activate_locked;
> >
> >> -> try_to_unmap
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ this line won't be reached if page is found to be
> > referenced in the above lines?
>
> Indeed! In fact, I was worry about that.
> It looks after live lock problem.
> But I think it's very small race window so there isn't any report until now.
> Let's Cced Lee.
>
> If we have to fix it, how about this ?
> This version has small overhead than yours since
> there is less shrink_page_list call than page_referenced.
Yeah, it looks better. However I still wonder if (VM_LOCKED && !PG_mlocked)
is possible and somehow persistent. Does anyone have the answer? Thanks!
Thanks,
Fengguang
>
> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> index ed63894..283266c 100644
> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> @@ -358,6 +358,7 @@ static int page_referenced_one(struct page *page,
> */
> if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) {
> *mapcount = 1; /* break early from loop */
> + *vm_flags |= VM_LOCKED;
> goto out_unmap;
> }
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index d224b28..d156e1d 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -632,7 +632,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct
> list_head *page_list,
> sc->mem_cgroup, &vm_flags);
> /* In active use or really unfreeable? Activate it. */
> if (sc->order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> - referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page))
> + referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page)
> + && !(vm_flags & VM_LOCKED))
> goto activate_locked;
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> >> -> try_to_unmap_xxx
> >> -> if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
> >> -> try_to_mlock_page
> >> -> TestSetPageMlocked
> >> -> putback_lru_page
> >>
> >> So at last, the page will be located in unevictable list.
> >>
> >> > Then I was worrying about a null problem. Sorry for the confusion!
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Fengguang
> >> >
> >> > > ----
> >> > >
> >> > > /*
> >> > > * called from munlock()/munmap() path with page supposedly on the LRU.
> >> > > *
> >> > > * Note: unlike mlock_vma_page(), we can't just clear the PageMlocked
> >> > > * [in try_to_munlock()] and then attempt to isolate the page. We must
> >> > > * isolate the page to keep others from messing with its unevictable
> >> > > * and mlocked state while trying to munlock. However, we pre-clear the
> >> > > * mlocked state anyway as we might lose the isolation race and we might
> >> > > * not get another chance to clear PageMlocked. If we successfully
> >> > > * isolate the page and try_to_munlock() detects other VM_LOCKED vmas
> >> > > * mapping the page, it will restore the PageMlocked state, unless the page
> >> > > * is mapped in a non-linear vma. So, we go ahead and SetPageMlocked(),
> >> > > * perhaps redundantly.
> >> > > * If we lose the isolation race, and the page is mapped by other VM_LOCKED
> >> > > * vmas, we'll detect this in vmscan--via try_to_munlock() or try_to_unmap()
> >> > > * either of which will restore the PageMlocked state by calling
> >> > > * mlock_vma_page() above, if it can grab the vma's mmap sem.
> >> > > */
> >> > > static void munlock_vma_page(struct page *page)
> >> > > {
> >> > > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Kind regards,
> >> > > Minchan Kim
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Minchan Kim
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists