linux-kernel - Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v13 4/5] mm: support reporting free page blocks

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]

Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:38:34 +0800
From:   Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, mst@...hat.com, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        david@...hat.com, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, aarcange@...hat.com,
        amit.shah@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        liliang.opensource@...il.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com,
        quan.xu@...yun.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v13 4/5] mm: support reporting free page
 blocks

On 08/10/2017 03:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 08-08-17 14:34:25, Wei Wang wrote:
>> On 08/08/2017 02:12 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
>>>> This is just too ugly and wrong actually. Never provide struct page
>>>> pointers outside of the zone->lock. What I've had in mind was to simply
>>>> walk free lists of the suitable order and call the callback for each
>>>> one.
>>>> Something as simple as
>>>>
>>>>     for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_ZONES; i++) {
>>>>         struct zone *zone = &pgdat->node_zones[i];
>>>>
>>>>         if (!populated_zone(zone))
>>>>             continue;
>>> Can we directly use for_each_populated_zone(zone) here?
> yes, my example couldn't because I was still assuming per-node API
>
>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>>>>         for (order = min_order; order < MAX_ORDER; ++order) {
>>>
>>> This appears to be covered by for_each_migratetype_order(order, mt) below.
> yes but
> #define for_each_migratetype_order(order, type) \
> 	for (order = 0; order < MAX_ORDER; order++) \
> 		for (type = 0; type < MIGRATE_TYPES; type++)
>
> so you would have to skip orders < min_order

Yes, that's why we have a new macro

#define for_each_migratetype_order_decend(min_order, order, type) \
  for (order = MAX_ORDER - 1; order < MAX_ORDER && order >= min_order; \
  order--) \
     for (type = 0; type < MIGRATE_TYPES; type++)

If you don't like the macro, we can also directly use it in the code.

I think it would be better to report the larger free page block first, since
the callback has an opportunity (though just a theoretical possibility, 
good to
take that into consideration if possible) to skip reporting the given 
free page
block to the hypervisor as the ring gets full. Losing the small block is 
better
than losing the larger one, in terms of the optimization work.


Best,
Wei