linux-kernel - Re: Resurrecting the VM

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: <20150303210150.GA6995@akamai.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:01:50 -0500
From:	Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > 
> >> On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:> All,
> >> >
> >> > After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create
> >> > infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them.
> >> > AFAICT, there was no objection to the set, it just needed some help
> >> > from the IB folks.
> >> >
> >> > Am I missing something about why it was never merged?  I ask because
> >> > Akamai has bumped into the disconnect between the mlock manpage,
> >> > Documentation/vm/unevictable-lru.txt, and reality WRT compaction and
> >> > locking.  A group working in userspace read those sources and wrote a
> >> > tool that mmaps many files read only and locked, munmapping them when
> >> > they are no longer needed.  Locking is used because they cannot afford a
> >> > major fault, but they are fine with minor faults.  This tends to
> >> > fragment memory badly so when they started looking into using hugetlbfs
> >> > (or anything requiring order > 0 allocations) they found they were not
> >> > able to allocate the memory.  They were confused based on the referenced
> >> > documentation as to why compaction would continually fail to yield
> >> > appropriately sized contiguous areas when there was more than enough
> >> > free memory.
> >> 
> >> So you are saying that mlocking (VM_LOCKED) prevents migration and thus
> >> compaction to do its job? If that's true, I think it's a bug as it is AFAIK
> >> supposed to work just fine.
> > 
> > Agreed.  But as has been discussed in the threads around the VM_PINNED
> > work, there are people that are relying on the fact that VM_LOCKED
> > promises no minor faults.  Which is why the behavoir has remained.
> 
> At least in the VM_PINNED thread after last lsf/mm, I don't see this mentioned.
> I found no references to mlocking in compaction.c, and in migrate.c there's just
> mlock_migrate_page() with comment:
> 
> /*
>  * mlock_migrate_page - called only from migrate_page_copy() to
>  * migrate the Mlocked page flag; update statistics.
>  */
> 
> It also passes TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK to try_to_unmap(). So what am I missing? Where
> is this restriction?
> 

I spent quite some time looking for it as well, it is in vmscan.c

int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
{
...
        /* Compaction should not handle unevictable pages but CMA can do so */
        if (PageUnevictable(page) && !(mode & ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE))
                return ret;
...



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)