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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:28:02 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] mm, hugetlb: allocation API and migration
 improvements

On Wed 20-12-17 14:43:03, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 12/20/2017 01:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 20-12-17 05:33:36, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> >> I have one comment on the code path from mbind(2).
> >> The callback passed to migrate_pages() in do_mbind() (i.e. new_page())
> >> calls alloc_huge_page_noerr() which currently doesn't call SetPageHugeTemporary(),
> >> so hugetlb migration fails when h->surplus_huge_page >= h->nr_overcommit_huge_pages.
> > 
> > Yes, I am aware of that. I should have been more explicit in the
> > changelog. Sorry about that and thanks for pointing it out explicitly.
> > To be honest I wasn't really sure what to do about this. The code path
> > is really complex and it made my head spin. I fail to see why we have to
> > call alloc_huge_page and mess with reservations at all.
> 
> Oops!  I missed that in my review.
> 
> Since alloc_huge_page was called with avoid_reserve == 1, it should not
> do anything with reserve counts.  One potential issue with the existing
> code is cgroup accounting done by alloc_huge_page.  When the new target
> page is allocated, it is charged against the cgroup even though the original
> page is still accounted for.  If we are 'at the cgroup limit', the migration
> may fail because of this.

Yeah, the existing code seems just broken. I strongly suspect that the
allocation API for hugetlb was so complicated that this was just a
natural result of a confusion with some follow up changes on top.

> I like your new code below as it explicitly takes reserve and cgroup
> accounting out of the picture for migration.  Let me think about it
> for another day before providing a Reviewed-by.

Thanks a lot!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists