linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] mm: mirrored memory support for page buddy allocations

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: <55829149.60807@huawei.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:37:13 +0800
From:	Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<nao.horiguchi@...il.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Xiexiuqi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] mm: mirrored memory support for page buddy
 allocations

On 2015/6/18 13:58, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 18.6.2015 3:23, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> On 2015/6/16 17:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/16/2015 10:17 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>> On 2015/6/16 15:53, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/04/2015 02:54 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think add a new migratetype is btter and easier than a new zone, so I use
>>>>>
>>>>> If the mirrored memory is in a single reasonably compact (no large holes) range
>>>>> (per NUMA node) and won't dynamically change its size, then zone might be a
>>>>> better option. For one thing, it will still allow distinguishing movable and
>>>>> unmovable allocations within the mirrored memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> We had enough fun with MIGRATE_CMA and all kinds of checks it added to allocator
>>>>> hot paths, and even CMA is now considering moving to a separate zone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, how about the problem of this case:
>>>> e.g. node 0: 0-4G(dma and dma32)
>>>>      node 1: 4G-8G(normal), 8-12G(mirror), 12-16G(normal),
>>>> so more than one normal zone in a node? or normal zone just span the mirror zone?
>>>
>>> Normal zone can span the mirror zone just fine. However, it will result in zone
>>> scanners such as compaction to skip over the mirror zone inefficiently. Hmm...
> 
> On the other hand, it would skip just as inefficiently over MIGRATE_MIRROR
> pageblocks within a Normal zone. Since migrating pages between MIGRATE_MIRROR
> and other types pageblocks would violate what the allocations requested.
> 
> Having separate zone instead would allow compaction to run specifically on the
> zone and defragment movable allocations there (i.e. userspace pages if/when
> userspace requesting mirrored memory is supported).
> 
>>>
>>
>> Hi Vlastimil,
>>
>> If there are many mirror regions in one node, then it will be many holes in the
>> normal zone, is this fine?
> 
> Yeah, it doesn't matter how many holes there are.

So mirror zone and normal zone will span each other, right?

e.g. node 1: 4G-8G(normal), 8-12G(mirror), 12-16G(normal), 16-24G(mirror), 24-28G(normal) ...
normal: start=4G, size=28-4=24G,
mirror: start=8G, size=24-8=16G,

I think zone is defined according to the special address range, like 16M(DMA), 4G(DMA32),
and is it appropriate to add a new mirror zone with a volatile physical address?

Thanks,
Xishi Qiu

--
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/