[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac4c6a09-7697-ae98-907e-75fb26346352@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:32:12 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/cma: manage the memory of the CMA area by using
the ZONE_MOVABLE
On 08/31/2017 03:40 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:16:18AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 08/24/2017 08:36 AM, js1304@...il.com wrote:
>>> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
>>>
>>> 0. History
>>>
>>> This patchset is the follow-up of the discussion about the
>>> "Introduce ZONE_CMA (v7)" [1]. Please reference it if more information
>>> is needed.
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> [1]: lkml.kernel.org/r/1491880640-9944-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@....com
>>> [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/15/623
>>> [3]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg100562.html
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>>
>> The previous version has introduced ZONE_CMA, so I would think switching
>> to ZONE_MOVABLE is enough to drop previous reviews. Perhaps most of the
>> code involved is basically the same, though?
>
> Yes, most of the code involved is the same. I considered to drop
> previous review tags but most of the code and concept is the same so I
> decide to keep review tags. I should mention it in cover-letter but I
> forgot to mention it. Sorry about that.
>
>> Anyway I checked the current patch and did some basic tests with qemu,
>> so you can keep my ack.
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>> BTW, if we dropped NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES, could we also drop MIGRATE_CMA and
>> related hooks? Is that counter really that useful as it works right now?
>> It will decrease both by CMA allocations (which has to be explicitly
>> freed) and by movable allocations (which can be migrated). What if only
>> CMA alloc/release touched it?
>
> I think that NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES would not be as useful as previous. We
> can remove it.
>
> However, removing MIGRATE_CMA has a problem. There is an usecase to
> check if the page comes from the CMA area or not. See
> check_page_span() in mm/usercopy.c. I can implement it differently by
> iterating whole CMA area and finding the match, but I'm not sure it's
> performance effect. I guess that it would be marginal.
+CC Kees Cook
Hmm, seems like this check is to make sure we don't copy from/to parts
of kernel memory we're not supposed to? Then I believe checking that
pages are in ZONE_MOVABLE should then give the same guarantees as
MIGRATE_CMA.
BTW the comment says "Reject if range is entirely either Reserved or
CMA" but the code does the opposite thing. I assume the comment is wrong?
> Anyway, I'd like not to cause any side-effect now. After patches are
> settle down on mainline, I will try to remove them as you suggested.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists