| 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: <4424609.WQEPaWUrpH@amdc1032>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:47:24 +0200
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
To: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nagachandra P <nagachandra@...il.com>,
Vinayak Menon <menon.vinayak@...il.com>,
Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.harjani@...il.com>,
t.stanislaws@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] CMA: always treat free cma pages as non-free on
watermark checking
Hi,
On Monday, June 02, 2014 09:37:49 AM Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> CC'ing the developer of the patch (Tomasz Stanislawski)
>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com> wrote:
> > 2014-05-30 19:40 GMT+09:00 Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>:
> >> Hi Joonsoo,
> >>
> >> I think you will be loosing the benefit of below patch with your changes.
> >> I am no expert here so please bear with me. I tried explaining in the
> >> inline comments, let me know if I am wrong.
> >>
> >> commit 026b08147923142e925a7d0aaa39038055ae0156
> >> Author: Tomasz Stanislawski <t.stanislaws@...sung.com>
> >> Date: Wed Jun 12 14:05:02 2013 -0700
> >
> > Hello, Ritesh.
> >
> > Thanks for notifying that.
> >
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> wrote:
> >>> commit d95ea5d1('cma: fix watermark checking') introduces ALLOC_CMA flag
It is a bit of shame that the author of commit d95ea5d1 (happens to be me :)
was not on cc:.
> >>> for alloc flag and treats free cma pages as free pages if this flag is
> >>> passed to watermark checking. Intention of that patch is that movable page
> >>> allocation can be be handled from cma reserved region without starting
> >>> kswapd. Now, previous patch changes the behaviour of allocator that
> >>> movable allocation uses the page on cma reserved region aggressively,
> >>> so this watermark hack isn't needed anymore. Therefore remove it.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> >>> index 627dc2e..36e2fcd 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> >>> @@ -1117,10 +1117,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_compact_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> >>>
> >>> count_compact_event(COMPACTSTALL);
> >>>
> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> >>> - if (allocflags_to_migratetype(gfp_mask) == MIGRATE_MOVABLE)
> >>> - alloc_flags |= ALLOC_CMA;
> >>> -#endif
> >>> /* Compact each zone in the list */
> >>> for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist, high_zoneidx,
> >>> nodemask) {
> >>> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> >>> index 07b6736..a121762 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/internal.h
> >>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> >>> @@ -384,7 +384,6 @@ unsigned long reclaim_clean_pages_from_list(struct zone *zone,
> >>> #define ALLOC_HARDER 0x10 /* try to alloc harder */
> >>> #define ALLOC_HIGH 0x20 /* __GFP_HIGH set */
> >>> #define ALLOC_CPUSET 0x40 /* check for correct cpuset */
> >>> -#define ALLOC_CMA 0x80 /* allow allocations from CMA areas */
> >>> -#define ALLOC_FAIR 0x100 /* fair zone allocation */
> >>> +#define ALLOC_FAIR 0x80 /* fair zone allocation */
> >>>
> >>> #endif /* __MM_INTERNAL_H */
> >>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >>> index ca678b6..83a8021 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >>> @@ -1764,20 +1764,22 @@ static bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, int order, unsigned long mark,
> >>> long min = mark;
> >>> long lowmem_reserve = z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx];
> >>> int o;
> >>> - long free_cma = 0;
> >>>
> >>> free_pages -= (1 << order) - 1;
> >>> if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HIGH)
> >>> min -= min / 2;
> >>> if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER)
> >>> min -= min / 4;
> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> >>> - /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> >>> - if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> >>> - free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> >>> -#endif
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * We don't want to regard the pages on CMA region as free
> >>> + * on watermark checking, since they cannot be used for
> >>> + * unmovable/reclaimable allocation and they can suddenly
> >>> + * vanish through CMA allocation
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) && z->managed_cma_pages)
> >>> + free_pages -= zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> >>
> >> make this free_cma instead of free_pages.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + lowmem_reserve)
> >>> + if (free_pages <= min + lowmem_reserve)
> >> free_pages - free_cma <= min + lowmem_reserve
> >>
> >> Because in for loop you subtract nr_free which includes the CMA pages.
> >> So if you have subtracted NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES
> >> from free_pages above then you will be subtracting cma pages again in
> >> nr_free (below in for loop).
> >
> > Yes, I understand the problem you mentioned.
> >
> > I think that this is complicated issue.
> >
> > Comit '026b081' you mentioned makes watermark_ok() loose for high order
> > allocation compared to kernel that CMA isn't enabled, since free_pages includes
> > free_cma pages and most of high order allocation except THP would be
> > non-movable allocation. This non-movable allocation can't use cma pages,
> > so we shouldn't include free_cma pages.
> >
> > If most of free cma pages are 0 order, that commit works correctly. We subtract
> > nr of free cma pages at the first loop, so there is no problem. But,
> > if the system
> > have some free high-order cma pages, watermark checking allow high-order
> > allocation more easily.
> >
> > I think that loosing the watermark check is right solution so will takes your
> > comment on v2. But I want to know other developer's opinion.
>
> Thanks for giving this a thought for your v2 patch.
>
>
> > If needed, I can implement to track free_area[o].nr_cma_free and use it for
> > precise freepage calculation in watermark check.
> >
> I guess implementing nr_cma_free would be the correct solution.
> Because currently for other than 0 order allocation
> we still consider high order free_cma pages as free pages in the for
> loop which from the code looks incorrect.
>
> This can lead to situation when we have more high order free CMA pages
> but very less unmovable pages, but zone_watermark returns
> ok for unmovable page, thus leading to allocation failure every time
> instead of recovering from this situation.
>
> But its better if experts comment on this.
I think that implementing free_area[].nr_cma_free is a correct long-term
solution and it should be done before the current patch gets applied.
[ Tomasz is on holiday currently but he should be back tomorrow so he can
also take a look at the issue. ]
Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
--
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