| 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: <4FFD1C71.2020404@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:25:53 +0800
From: Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
To: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
rientjes@...gle.com, liuj97@...il.com, len.brown@...el.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, cl@...ux.com,
minchan.kim@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 11/13] memory-hotplug : free memmap of sparse-vmemmap
At 07/11/2012 01:52 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu Wrote:
> 2012/07/11 14:06, Wen Congyang wrote:
> Hi Wen,
>
>> At 07/09/2012 06:33 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu Wrote:
>>> I don't think that all pages of virtual mapping in removed memory can be
>>> freed, since page which type is MIX_SECTION_INFO is difficult to free.
>>> So, the patch only frees page which type is SECTION_INFO at first.
>>>
>>> CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
>>> CC: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
>>> CC: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
>>> CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
>>> CC: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
>>> CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
>>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
>>> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>>> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>>> CC: Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/mm/init_64.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 +
>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 5 ++
>>> mm/sparse.c | 5 +-
>>> 4 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Index: linux-3.5-rc4/include/linux/mm.h
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/include/linux/mm.h 2012-07-03 14:22:18.530011567 +0900
>>> +++ linux-3.5-rc4/include/linux/mm.h 2012-07-03 14:22:20.999983872 +0900
>>> @@ -1588,6 +1588,8 @@ int vmemmap_populate(struct page *start_
>>> void vmemmap_populate_print_last(void);
>>> void register_page_bootmem_memmap(unsigned long section_nr, struct page *map,
>>> unsigned long size);
>>> +void vmemmap_kfree(struct page *memmpa, unsigned long nr_pages);
>>> +void vmemmap_free_bootmem(struct page *memmpa, unsigned long nr_pages);
>>>
>>> enum mf_flags {
>>> MF_COUNT_INCREASED = 1 << 0,
>>> Index: linux-3.5-rc4/mm/sparse.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/mm/sparse.c 2012-07-03 14:21:45.071429805 +0900
>>> +++ linux-3.5-rc4/mm/sparse.c 2012-07-03 14:22:21.000983767 +0900
>>> @@ -614,12 +614,13 @@ static inline struct page *kmalloc_secti
>>> /* This will make the necessary allocations eventually. */
>>> return sparse_mem_map_populate(pnum, nid);
>>> }
>>> -static void __kfree_section_memmap(struct page *memmap, unsigned long nr_pages)
>>> +static void __kfree_section_memmap(struct page *page, unsigned long nr_pages)
>>> {
>>> - return; /* XXX: Not implemented yet */
>>> + vmemmap_kfree(page, nr_pages);
>>
>> Hmm, I think you try to free the memory allocated in kmalloc_section_memmap().
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>>> }
>>> static void free_map_bootmem(struct page *page, unsigned long nr_pages)
>>> {
>>> + vmemmap_free_bootmem(page, nr_pages);
>>> }
>>
>> Hmm, which function is the memory you try to free allocated in?
>
> The function try to free memory allocated from bootmem. The memory has
> been registered by get_page_bootmem(). So we can free the memory by
> put_page_bootmem().
OK, I will read these codes, and check it.
>
>>
>>> #else
>>> static struct page *__kmalloc_section_memmap(unsigned long nr_pages)
>>> Index: linux-3.5-rc4/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c 2012-07-03 14:22:18.538011465 +0900
>>> +++ linux-3.5-rc4/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c 2012-07-03 14:22:21.007983103 +0900
>>> @@ -978,6 +978,97 @@ vmemmap_populate(struct page *start_page
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +unsigned long find_and_clear_pte_page(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>>> + struct page **pp)
>>> +{
>>> + pgd_t *pgd;
>>> + pud_t *pud;
>>> + pmd_t *pmd;
>>> + pte_t *pte;
>>> + unsigned long next;
>>> +
>>> + *pp = NULL;
>>> +
>>> + pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr);
>>> + if (pgd_none(*pgd))
>>> + return (addr + PAGE_SIZE) & PAGE_MASK;
>>
>> Hmm, why not goto next pgd?
>
> Does it mean "return (addr + PGDIR_SIZE) & PGDIR_MASK"?
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
>>> + if (pud_none(*pud))
>>> + return (addr + PAGE_SIZE) & PAGE_MASK;
>>> +
>>> + if (!cpu_has_pse) {
>>> + next = (addr + PAGE_SIZE) & PAGE_MASK;
>>> + pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
>>> + if (pmd_none(*pmd))
>>> + return next;
>>> +
>>> + pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr);
>>> + if (pte_none(*pte))
>>> + return next;
>>> +
>>> + *pp = pte_page(*pte);
>>> + pte_clear(&init_mm, addr, pte);
>>
>> I think you should flush tlb here.
>
> Thanks, I'll update it.
>
>>
>>> + } else {
>>> + next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
>>> +
>>> + pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
>>> + if (pmd_none(*pmd))
>>> + return next;
>>> +
>>> + *pp = pmd_page(*pmd);
>>> + pmd_clear(pmd);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return next;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void __meminit
>>> +vmemmap_kfree(struct page *memmap, unsigned long nr_pages)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)memmap;
>>> + unsigned long end = (unsigned long)(memmap + nr_pages);
>>> + unsigned long next;
>>> + unsigned int order;
>>> + struct page *page;
>>> +
>>> + for (; addr < end; addr = next) {
>>> + page = NULL;
>>> + next = find_and_clear_pte_page(addr, end, &page);
>>> + if (!page)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + if (is_vmalloc_addr(page_address(page)))
>>> + vfree(page_address(page));
>>
>> Hmm, the memory is allocated in vmemmap_alloc_block(), and the address
>> can not be vmalloc address.
>
> Does it mean the if sentence is unnecessary?
>
>>
>>> + else {
>>> + order = next - addr;
>>> + free_pages((unsigned long)page_address(page),
>>> + get_order(order));
>>
>> OOPS. I think we cannot free pages here.
>>
>> sizeof(struct page) is less than PAGE_SIZE. We store more than one struct
>> page in the same page. If you free it here while the other struct page
>> is in use, it is very dangerous.
>
> The memory has page structures for hot-removed memory. So nobody is using
> these pages, since the hot-removed memory has been offlined.
The memory has page structures for hot-removed memory, but it may contain
page structures for the other hot-added memory.
IIUC, If we use sparse-vmemmap, all page structures is stored here.
Thanks
Wen Congyang
>
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void __meminit
>>> +vmemmap_free_bootmem(struct page *memmap, unsigned long nr_pages)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)memmap;
>>> + unsigned long end = (unsigned long)(memmap + nr_pages);
>>> + unsigned long next;
>>> + struct page *page;
>>> + unsigned long magic;
>>> +
>>> + for (; addr < end; addr = next) {
>>> + page = NULL;
>>> + next = find_and_clear_pte_page(addr, end, &page);
>>> + if (!page)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + magic = (unsigned long) page->lru.next;
>>> + if (magic == SECTION_INFO)
>>> + put_page_bootmem(page);
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> void __meminit
>>> register_page_bootmem_memmap(unsigned long section_nr, struct page *start_page,
>>> unsigned long size)
>>> Index: linux-3.5-rc4/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-3.5-rc4.orig/mm/memory_hotplug.c 2012-07-03 14:22:18.522011667 +0900
>>> +++ linux-3.5-rc4/mm/memory_hotplug.c 2012-07-03 14:22:21.012982694 +0900
>>> @@ -303,6 +303,8 @@ static int __meminit __add_section(int n
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
>>
>> I think this line can be removed now.
>
> I'll update it.
>
> Thanks,
> Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Wen Congyang
>>
>>> static int __remove_section(struct zone *zone, struct mem_section *ms)
>>> {
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + struct pglist_data *pgdat = zone->zone_pgdat;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> if (!valid_section(ms))
>>> @@ -310,6 +312,9 @@ static int __remove_section(struct zone
>>>
>>> ret = unregister_memory_section(ms);
>>>
>>> + pgdat_resize_lock(pgdat, &flags);
>>> + sparse_remove_one_section(zone, ms);
>>> + pgdat_resize_unlock(pgdat, &flags);
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>> #else
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
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