linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm, page_alloc: make THP-specific decisions more generic

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1607191608550.19940@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm, page_alloc: make THP-specific decisions more
 generic

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> Since THP allocations during page faults can be costly, extra decisions are
> employed for them to avoid excessive reclaim and compaction, if the initial
> compaction doesn't look promising. The detection has never been perfect as
> there is no gfp flag specific to THP allocations. At this moment it checks the
> whole combination of flags that makes up GFP_TRANSHUGE, and hopes that no other
> users of such combination exist, or would mind being treated the same way.
> Extra care is also taken to separate allocations from khugepaged, where latency
> doesn't matter that much.
> 
> It is however possible to distinguish these allocations in a simpler and more
> reliable way. The key observation is that after the initial compaction followed
> by the first iteration of "standard" reclaim/compaction, both __GFP_NORETRY
> allocations and costly allocations without __GFP_REPEAT are declared as
> failures:
> 
>         /* Do not loop if specifically requested */
>         if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
>                 goto nopage;
> 
>         /*
>          * Do not retry costly high order allocations unless they are
>          * __GFP_REPEAT
>          */
>         if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT))
>                 goto nopage;
> 
> This means we can further distinguish allocations that are costly order *and*
> additionally include the __GFP_NORETRY flag. As it happens, GFP_TRANSHUGE
> allocations do already fall into this category. This will also allow other
> costly allocations with similar high-order benefit vs latency considerations to
> use this semantic. Furthermore, we can distinguish THP allocations that should
> try a bit harder (such as from khugepageed) by removing __GFP_NORETRY, as will
> be done in the next patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

I think this is fine, but I would hope that we could check 
gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed() before compacting and failing even for costly 
orders when otherwise the first get_page_from_freelist() in the slowpath 
may have succeeded due to watermarks.