| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170210174307.GC86050@shli-mbp.local>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:43:07 -0800
From: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<Kernel-team@...com>, <danielmicay@...il.com>, <mhocko@...e.com>,
<hughd@...gle.com>, <hannes@...xchg.org>, <riel@...hat.com>,
<mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/7] mm: reclaim MADV_FREE pages
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:58:39PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 03:33:19PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > When memory pressure is high, we free MADV_FREE pages. If the pages are
> > not dirty in pte, the pages could be freed immediately. Otherwise we
> > can't reclaim them. We put the pages back to anonumous LRU list (by
> > setting SwapBacked flag) and the pages will be reclaimed in normal
> > swapout way.
> >
> > We use normal page reclaim policy. Since MADV_FREE pages are put into
> > inactive file list, such pages and inactive file pages are reclaimed
> > according to their age. This is expected, because we don't want to
> > reclaim too many MADV_FREE pages before used once pages.
> >
> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
> > ---
> > mm/rmap.c | 4 ++++
> > mm/vmscan.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > index c8d6204..5f05926 100644
> > --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > @@ -1554,6 +1554,10 @@ static int try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > dec_mm_counter(mm, MM_ANONPAGES);
> > rp->lazyfreed++;
> > goto discard;
> > + } else if (flags & TTU_LZFREE) {
> > + set_pte_at(mm, address, pte, pteval);
> > + ret = SWAP_FAIL;
> > + goto out_unmap;
>
> trivial:
>
> How about this?
>
> if (flags && TTU_LZFREE) {
> if (PageDirty(page)) {
> set_pte_at(XXX);
> ret = SWAP_FAIL;
> goto out_unmap;
> } else {
> dec_mm_counter(mm, MM_ANONPAGES);
> rp->lazyfreed++;
> goto discard;
> }
> }
ok
> > }
> >
> > if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0) {
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 947ab6f..b304a84 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ static enum page_references page_check_references(struct page *page,
> > return PAGEREF_RECLAIM;
> >
> > if (referenced_ptes) {
> > - if (PageSwapBacked(page))
> > + if (PageSwapBacked(page) || PageAnon(page))
>
> If anyone accesses MADV_FREEed range with load op, not store,
> why shouldn't we discard that pages?
Don't have strong opinion about this, userspace probably shouldn't do this. I'm
ok to delete it if you insist.
> > return PAGEREF_ACTIVATE;
> > /*
> > * All mapped pages start out with page table
> > @@ -903,7 +903,7 @@ static enum page_references page_check_references(struct page *page,
> >
> > /* Check if a page is dirty or under writeback */
> > static void page_check_dirty_writeback(struct page *page,
> > - bool *dirty, bool *writeback)
> > + bool *dirty, bool *writeback, bool lazyfree)
> > {
> > struct address_space *mapping;
> >
> > @@ -911,7 +911,7 @@ static void page_check_dirty_writeback(struct page *page,
> > * Anonymous pages are not handled by flushers and must be written
> > * from reclaim context. Do not stall reclaim based on them
> > */
> > - if (!page_is_file_cache(page)) {
> > + if (!page_is_file_cache(page) || lazyfree) {
>
> tivial:
>
> We can check it with PageLazyFree in here rather than passing lazyfree
> argument. It's consistent like page_is_file_cache in here.
ok
> > *dirty = false;
> > *writeback = false;
> > return;
> > @@ -971,7 +971,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> > int may_enter_fs;
> > enum page_references references = PAGEREF_RECLAIM_CLEAN;
> > bool dirty, writeback;
> > - bool lazyfree = false;
> > + bool lazyfree;
> > int ret = SWAP_SUCCESS;
> >
> > cond_resched();
> > @@ -986,6 +986,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> >
> > sc->nr_scanned++;
> >
> > + lazyfree = page_is_lazyfree(page);
> > +
> > if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page)))
> > goto cull_mlocked;
> >
> > @@ -993,7 +995,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> > goto keep_locked;
> >
> > /* Double the slab pressure for mapped and swapcache pages */
> > - if (page_mapped(page) || PageSwapCache(page))
> > + if ((page_mapped(page) || PageSwapCache(page)) && !lazyfree)
> > sc->nr_scanned++;
>
> In this phase, we cannot know whether lazyfree marked page is discarable
> or not. If it is freeable and mapped, this logic makes sense. However,
> if the page is dirty?
I think this doesn't matter. If the page is dirty, it will go to reclaim in
next round and swap out. At that time, we will add nr_scanned there.
> >
> > may_enter_fs = (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) ||
> > @@ -1005,7 +1007,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> > * will stall and start writing pages if the tail of the LRU
> > * is all dirty unqueued pages.
> > */
> > - page_check_dirty_writeback(page, &dirty, &writeback);
> > + page_check_dirty_writeback(page, &dirty, &writeback, lazyfree);
> > if (dirty || writeback)
> > nr_dirty++;
> >
> > @@ -1107,6 +1109,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> > ; /* try to reclaim the page below */
> > }
> >
> > + /* lazyfree page could be freed directly */
> > + if (lazyfree) {
> > + if (unlikely(PageTransHuge(page)) &&
> > + split_huge_page_to_list(page, page_list))
> > + goto keep_locked;
> > + goto unmap_page;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Maybe, we can remove this hunk. Instead add lazyfree check in here.
>
> if (PageAnon(page) && !PageSwapCache(page) && !lazyfree) {
> if (!(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO))
ok
Thanks,
Shaohua
Powered by blists - more mailing lists