linux-kernel - Re: Suspicious error for CMA stress test

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: <56EC6BFB.2020107@suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:58:35 +0100
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	"Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
	qiuxishi <qiuxishi@...wei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	dingtinahong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>, chenjie6@...wei.com,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Suspicious error for CMA stress test

On 03/18/2016 03:42 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 18.03.2016, 15:10 +0100 schrieb Vlastimil Babka:
>> On 03/17/2016 04:52 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> > 2016-03-18 0:43 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>:
>>
>> OK, here it is. Hanjun can you please retest this, as I'm not sure if you had
>> the same code due to the followup one-liner patches in the thread. Lucas, see if
>> it helps with your issue as well. Laura and Joonsoo, please also test and review
>> and check changelog if my perception of the problem is accurate :)
>>
>
> This doesn't help for my case, as it is still trying to merge pages in
> isolated ranges. It even tries extra hard at doing so.
>
> With concurrent isolation and frees going on this may lead to the start
> page of the range to be isolated merging into an higher order buddy page
> if it isn't already pageblock aligned, leading both test_pages_isolated
> and isolate_freepages to fail on an otherwise perfectly fine range.
>
> What I am arguing is that if a page is freed into an isolated range we
> should not try merge it with it's buddies at all, by setting max_order =
> order. If the range is isolated because want to isolate freepages from
> it, the work to do the merging is wasted, as isolate_freepages will
> split higher order pages into order-0 pages again.
>
> If we already finished isolating freepages and are in the process of
> undoing the isolation, we don't strictly need to do the merging in
> __free_one_page, but can defer it to unset_migratetype_isolate, allowing
> to simplify those code paths by disallowing any merging of isolated
> pages at all.

Oh, I think understand now. Yeah, skipping merging for pages in isolated 
pageblocks might be a rather elegant solution. But still, we would have to check 
buddy's migratetype at order >= pageblock_order like my patch does, which is 
annoying. Because even without isolated merging, the buddy might have already 
had order>=pageblock_order when it was isolated.

So what if isolation also split existing buddies in the pageblock immediately 
when it sets the MIGRATETYPE_ISOLATE on the pageblock? Then we would have it 
guaranteed that there's no isolated buddy - a buddy candidate at order >= 
pageblock_order either has a smaller order (so it's not a buddy) or is not 
MIGRATE_ISOLATE so it's safe to merge with.

Does that make sense?