linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: mm: export PTE sizes directly in smaps (v2)

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: <8769d52a-de0b-8c98-1e0b-e5305c5c02f3@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:22:23 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     hch@....de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: mm: export PTE sizes directly in smaps (v2)

On 11/17/2016 01:28 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Changes from v1:
>  * Do one 'Pte' line per pte size instead of mashing on one line
>  * Use PMD_SIZE for pmds instead of PAGE_SIZE, whoops
>  * Wrote some Documentation/
>
> --
>
> /proc/$pid/smaps has a number of fields that are intended to imply the
> kinds of PTEs used to map memory.  "AnonHugePages" obviously tells you
> how many PMDs are being used.  "MMUPageSize" along with the "Hugetlb"
> fields tells you how many PTEs you have for a huge page.
>
> The current mechanisms work fine when we have one or two page sizes.
> But, they start to get a bit muddled when we mix page sizes inside
> one VMA.  For instance, the DAX folks were proposing adding a set of
> fields like:
>
> 	DevicePages:
> 	DeviceHugePages:
> 	DeviceGiganticPages:
> 	DeviceGinormousPages:
>
> to unmuddle things when page sizes get mixed.  That's fine, but
> it does require userspace know the mapping from our various
> arbitrary names to hardware page sizes on each architecture and
> kernel configuration.  That seems rather suboptimal.
>
> What folks really want is to know how much memory is mapped with
> each page size.  How about we just do *that*?
>
> Patch attached.  Seems harmless enough.  Seems to compile on a
> bunch of random architectures.  Makes smaps look like this:
>
> Private_Hugetlb:       0 kB
> Swap:                  0 kB
> SwapPss:               0 kB
> KernelPageSize:        4 kB
> MMUPageSize:           4 kB
> Locked:                0 kB
> Ptes@4kB:	      32 kB
> Ptes@2MB:	    2048 kB
>
> The format I used here should be unlikely to break smaps parsers
> unless they're looking for "kB" and now match the 'Ptes@...' instead
> of the one at the end of the line.
>
> 1. I'd like to thank Dan Williams for showing me a mirror as I
>    complained about the bozo that introduced 'AnonHugePages'.
>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org

Hmm, why not, I guess. But are HugeTLBs handled correctly?

> @@ -702,11 +707,13 @@ static int smaps_hugetlb_range(pte_t *pt
>  	}
>  	if (page) {
>  		int mapcount = page_mapcount(page);
> +		unsigned long hpage_size = huge_page_size(hstate_vma(vma));
>
> +		mss->rss_pud += hpage_size;

This hardcoded pud doesn't look right, doesn't the pmd/pud depend on 
hpage_size?

>  		if (mapcount >= 2)
> -			mss->shared_hugetlb += huge_page_size(hstate_vma(vma));
> +			mss->shared_hugetlb += hpage_size;
>  		else
> -			mss->private_hugetlb += huge_page_size(hstate_vma(vma));
> +			mss->private_hugetlb += hpage_size;
>  	}
>  	return 0;
>  }