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 15:35:28 -0800
From:   Mike Kravetz <>
To:     Michal Hocko <>
Cc:     Naoya Horiguchi <>,
        "" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        LKML <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] mm, hugetlb: allocation API and migration

On 12/20/2017 11:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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!

You can add,

Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <>

I had some concerns about transferring huge page state during migration
not specific to this patch, so I did a bunch of testing.

Mike Kravetz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists