linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: Add per-mm

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: <20140111193003.GA10649@sgi.com>
Date:	Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:30:03 -0600
From:	Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: Add per-mm_struct flag to control THP

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/10, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds an mm flag (MMF_THP_DISABLE) to disable transparent
> > hugepages using prctl.  It is based on my original patch to add a
> > per-task_struct flag to disable THP:
> 
> I leave the "whether we need this feature" to other reviewers, although
> personally I think it probably makes sense anyway.
> 
> But the patch doesn't look nice imho.
> 
> > @@ -373,7 +373,15 @@ extern int get_dumpable(struct mm_struct *mm);
> >  #define MMF_HAS_UPROBES		19	/* has uprobes */
> >  #define MMF_RECALC_UPROBES	20	/* MMF_HAS_UPROBES can be wrong */
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > +#define MMF_THP_DISABLE		21	/* disable THP for this mm */
> > +#define MMF_THP_DISABLE_MASK	(1 << MMF_THP_DISABLE)
> > +
> > +#define MMF_INIT_MASK		(MMF_DUMPABLE_MASK | MMF_DUMP_FILTER_MASK | MMF_THP_DISABLE_MASK)
> > +#else
> >  #define MMF_INIT_MASK		(MMF_DUMPABLE_MASK | MMF_DUMP_FILTER_MASK)
> > +#endif
> 
> It would be nice to lessen the number of ifdef's. Why we can't define
> MMF_THP_DISABLE unconditionally and include it into MMF_INIT_MASK?
> Or define it == 0 if !CONFIG_THP. But this is minor.

That's a good idea.  I guess I was thinking that we don't want to define
any THP specific stuff when THP isn't configured, but I guess it doesn't
make much of a difference since the flag will never be set if THP isn't
configured.

> > +#define PR_SET_THP_DISABLE	41
> > +#define PR_CLEAR_THP_DISABLE	42
> > +#define PR_GET_THP_DISABLE	43
> 
> Why we can't add 2 PR_'s, set and get?

See response below.

> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -818,6 +818,7 @@ struct mm_struct *dup_mm(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >  #if defined(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE) && !USE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCKS
> >  	mm->pmd_huge_pte = NULL;
> >  #endif
> > +
> >  	if (!mm_init(mm, tsk))
> >  		goto fail_nomem;
> 
> Why? looks like the accidental change.

Ah, yes.  Didn't catch that when I looked over the patch.  I'll fix
that.

> 
> > --- a/kernel/sys.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> > @@ -1835,6 +1835,42 @@ static int prctl_get_tid_address(struct task_struct *me, int __user **tid_addr)
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > +static int prctl_set_thp_disable(struct task_struct *me)
> > +{
> > +	set_bit(MMF_THP_DISABLE, &me->mm->flags);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int prctl_clear_thp_disable(struct task_struct *me)
> > +{
> > +	clear_bit(MMF_THP_DISABLE, &me->mm->flags);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int prctl_get_thp_disable(struct task_struct *me,
> > +				  int __user *thp_disabled)
> > +{
> > +	return put_user(test_bit(MMF_THP_DISABLE, &me->mm->flags), thp_disabled);
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static int prctl_set_thp_disable(struct task_struct *me)
> > +{
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int prctl_clear_thp_disable(struct task_struct *me)
> > +{
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int prctl_get_thp_disable(struct task_struct *me,
> > +				  int __user *thp_disabled)
> > +{
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
> >  		unsigned long, arg4, unsigned long, arg5)
> >  {
> > @@ -1998,6 +2034,15 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
> >  		if (arg2 || arg3 || arg4 || arg5)
> >  			return -EINVAL;
> >  		return current->no_new_privs ? 1 : 0;
> > +	case PR_SET_THP_DISABLE:
> > +		error = prctl_set_thp_disable(me);
> > +		break;
> > +	case PR_CLEAR_THP_DISABLE:
> > +		error = prctl_clear_thp_disable(me);
> > +		break;
> > +	case PR_GET_THP_DISABLE:
> > +		error = prctl_get_thp_disable(me, (int __user *) arg2);
> > +		break;
> >  	default:
> >  		error = -EINVAL;
> >  		break;
> 
> I simply can't understand, this all looks like overkill. Can't you simply add
> 
> 	#idfef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> 	case GET:
> 		error = test_bit(MMF_THP_DISABLE);
> 		break;
> 	case PUT:
> 		if (arg2)
> 			set_bit();
> 		else
> 			clear_bit();
> 		break;
> 	#endif
> 
> into sys_prctl() ?	

That's probably a better solution.  I wasn't sure whether or not it was
better to have two functions to handle this, or to have one function
handle both.  If you think it's better to just handle both with one,
that's easy enough to change.

- Alex
--
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/