linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:23:08 -0400
From:	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 02:48:18PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi Aneesh,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 12:43:19PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Currently all of page table handling by hugetlbfs code are done under
> >> > mm->page_table_lock. So when a process have many threads and they heavily
> >> > access to the memory, lock contention happens and impacts the performance.
> >> >
> >> > This patch makes hugepage support split page table lock so that we use
> >> > page->ptl of the leaf node of page table tree which is pte for normal pages
> >> > but can be pmd and/or pud for hugepages of some architectures.
> >> >
> >> > ChangeLog v2:
> >> >  - add split ptl on other archs missed in v1
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c |  6 ++-
> >> >  arch/tile/mm/hugetlbpage.c    |  6 ++-
> >> >  include/linux/hugetlb.h       | 20 ++++++++++
> >> >  mm/hugetlb.c                  | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >> >  mm/mempolicy.c                |  5 ++-
> >> >  mm/migrate.c                  |  4 +-
> >> >  mm/rmap.c                     |  2 +-
> >> >  7 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git v3.11-rc3.orig/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c v3.11-rc3/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> > index d67db4b..7e56cb7 100644
> >> > --- v3.11-rc3.orig/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> > +++ v3.11-rc3/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> > @@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ static int __hugepte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, hugepd_t *hpdp,
> >> >  {
> >> >  	struct kmem_cache *cachep;
> >> >  	pte_t *new;
> >> > +	spinlock_t *ptl;
> >> >
> >> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E
> >> >  	int i;
> >> > @@ -141,7 +142,8 @@ static int __hugepte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, hugepd_t *hpdp,
> >> >  	if (! new)
> >> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >> >
> >> > -	spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> >> > +	ptl = huge_pte_lockptr(mm, new);
> >> > +	spin_lock(ptl);
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Are you sure we can do that for ppc ?
> >> 	new = kmem_cache_zalloc(cachep, GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_REPEAT);
> >
> > Ah, thanks. new is not a pointer to one full page occupied by page
> > table entries, so trying to use struct page of it is totally wrong.
> >
> >> The page for new(pte_t) could be shared right ? which mean a deadlock ?
> >
> > Yes, that's disastrous.
> >
> >> May be you should do it at the pmd level itself for ppc
> 
> The pgd page also cannot be used because pgd also comes from kmem
> cache.
> 
> >
> > Yes, that's possible, but I simply drop the changes in __hugepte_alloc()
> > for now because this lock seems to protect us from the race between concurrent
> > calls of __hugepte_alloc(), not between allocation and read/write access.
> > Split ptl is used to avoid race between read/write accesses, so I think
> > that using different types of locks here is not dangerous.
> > # I guess that that's why we now use mm->page_table_lock for __pte_alloc()
> > # and its family even if USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS is true.
> 
> A simpler approach could be to make huge_pte_lockptr arch
> specific and leave it as mm->page_table_lock for ppc 

OK, I'll do this.

Thanks,
Naoya
--
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/