linux-kernel - Re: gigantic hugepages vs. movable zones

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: <fe817e86-c756-653f-1cd8-e7c8cf6779ee@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:56:54 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: gigantic hugepages vs. movable zones

On 07/27/2017 10:22 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC for real]
> 
> On Thu 27-07-17 10:12:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 27-07-17 13:30:31, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/27/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Thu 27-07-17 07:52:08, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I've just noticed that alloc_gigantic_page ignores movability of the
>>>>>> gigantic page and it uses any existing zone. Considering that
>>>>>> hugepage_migration_supported only supports 2MB and pgd level hugepages
>>>>>> then 1GB pages are not migratable and as such allocating them from a
>>>>>> movable zone will break the basic expectation of this zone. Standard
>>>>>> hugetlb allocations try to avoid that by using htlb_alloc_mask and I
>>>>>> believe we should do the same for gigantic pages as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect this behavior is not intentional. What do you think about the
>>>>>> following untested patch?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also noticed an unrelated issue with the usage of
>>>>> start_isolate_page_range. On error we set the migrate type to
>>>>> MIGRATE_MOVABLE.
>>>>
>>>> Why that should be a problem? I think it is perfectly OK to have
>>>> MIGRATE_MOVABLE pageblocks inside kernel zones.
>>>>
>>>
>>> we can pick pages with migrate type movable and if we fail to isolate won't

                                        ^ CMA

>>> we set the migrate type of that pages to MOVABLE ?

Yes, it seems we can silently kill CMA pageblocks in such case. Joonsoo,
can you check?

>>
>> I do not see an immediate problem. GFP_KERNEL allocations can fallback
>> to movable migrate pageblocks AFAIR. But I am not very much familiar
>> with migratetypes. Vlastimil, could you have a look please?
>