linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk

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: <CA+55aFwX0yrUPULrDxTWVCg5c6DKh-yCG84NXVxaptXNQ4O_kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:14:12 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Mel Gorman
<mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> One option to mitigate (but not eliminate) the problem is to record when
> the page lock is contended and pass in TNF_PAGE_CONTENDED (new flag) to
> task_numa_fault().

Well, finding it contended is fairly easy - just look at the page wait
queue, and if it's not empty, assume it's due to contention.

I also wonder if we could be even *more* hacky, and in the whole
__migration_entry_wait() path, change the logic from:

 - wait on page lock before retrying the fault

to

 - yield()

which is hacky, but there's a rationale for it:

 (a) avoid the crazy long wait queues ;)

 (b) we know that migration is *supposed* to be CPU-bound (not IO
bound), so yielding the CPU and retrying may just be the right thing
to do.

It's possible that we could just do a hybrid approach, and introduce a
"wait_on_page_lock_or_yield()", that does a sleeping wait if the
wait-queue is short, and a yield otherwise, but it might be worth just
testing the truly stupid patch.

Because that code sequence doesn't actually depend on
"wait_on_page_lock()" for _correctness_ anyway, afaik. Anybody who
does "migration_entry_wait()" _has_ to retry anyway, since the page
table contents may have changed by waiting.

So I'm not proud of the attached patch, and I don't think it's really
acceptable as-is, but maybe it's worth testing? And maybe it's
arguably no worse than what we have now?

Comments?

(Yeah, if we take this approach, we might even just say "screw the
spinlock - just do ACCESS_ONCE() and do a yield() if it looks like a
migration entry")

                     Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (1025 bytes)