| 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: <20090819140053.GA7628@localhost>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:00:53 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.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>,
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 Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 09:38:05PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:25:56PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:05:19PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> >> >> page_referenced_file?
> >> >> >> I think we should change page_referenced().
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yeah, good catch.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Instead, How about this?
> >> >> >> ==============================================
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Subject: [PATCH] mm: stop circulating of referenced mlocked pages
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Currently, mlock() systemcall doesn't gurantee to mark the page PG_Mlocked
> >> >> >
> >> >> > mark PG_mlocked
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> because some race prevent page grabbing.
> >> >> >> In that case, instead vmscan move the page to unevictable lru.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> However, Recently Wu Fengguang pointed out current vmscan logic isn't so
> >> >> >> efficient.
> >> >> >> mlocked page can move circulatly active and inactive list because
> >> >> >> vmscan check the page is referenced _before_ cull mlocked page.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Plus, vmscan should mark PG_Mlocked when cull mlocked page.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > PG_mlocked
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Otherwise vm stastics show strange number.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This patch does that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Index: b/mm/rmap.c
> >> >> >> ===================================================================
> >> >> >> --- a/mm/rmap.c 2009-08-18 19:48:14.000000000 +0900
> >> >> >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c 2009-08-18 23:47:34.000000000 +0900
> >> >> >> @@ -362,7 +362,9 @@ static int page_referenced_one(struct pa
> >> >> >> * unevictable list.
> >> >> >> */
> >> >> >> if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) {
> >> >> >> - *mapcount = 1; /* break early from loop */
> >> >> >> + *mapcount = 1; /* break early from loop */
> >> >> >> + *vm_flags |= VM_LOCKED; /* for prevent to move active list */
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> + try_set_page_mlocked(vma, page);
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That call is not absolutely necessary?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? I haven't catch your point.
> >> >
> >> > Because we'll eventually hit another try_set_page_mlocked() when
> >> > trying to unmap the page. Ie. duplicated with another call you added
> >> > in this patch.
> >>
> >> Yes. we don't have to call it and we can make patch simple.
> >> I already sent patch on yesterday.
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=125059325722370&w=2
> >>
> >> I think It's more simple than KOSAKI's idea.
> >> Is any problem in my patch ?
> >
> > No, IMHO your patch is simple and good, while KOSAKI's is more
> > complete :)
> >
> > - the try_set_page_mlocked() rename is suitable
> > - the call to try_set_page_mlocked() is necessary on try_to_unmap()
>
> We don't need try_set_page_mlocked call in try_to_unmap.
> That's because try_to_unmap_xxx will call try_to_mlock_page if the
> page is included in any VM_LOCKED vma. Eventually, It can move
> unevictable list.
Yes, indeed!
> > - the "if (VM_LOCKED) referenced = 0" in page_referenced() could
> > cover both active/inactive vmscan
>
> ASAP we set PG_mlocked in page, we can save unnecessary vmscan cost from
> active list to inactive list. But I think it's rare case so that there
> would be few pages.
> So I think that will be not big overhead.
The active list case can be persistent, when the mlocked (but without
PG_mlocked) page is executable and referenced by 2+ processes. But I
admit that executable pages are relatively rare.
> As I know, Rescue by vmscan page losing the isolation race was the
> Lee's design.
> But as you pointed out, it have a bug that vmscan can't rescue the
> page due to reach try_to_unmap.
>
> So I think this approach is proper. :)
Now you decide :)
Thanks,
Fengguang
> > I did like your proposed
> >
> > if (sc->order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> > - referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page))
> > + referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page)
> > + && !(vm_flags & VM_LOCKED))
> > goto activate_locked;
> >
> > which looks more intuitive and less confusing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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