[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21c31952-7632-b8e1-aa33-d124ce96b88e@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:45:54 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] mm/kdump: exclude reserved pages in dumps
On 26.07.2018 10:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 26-07-18 10:22:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.07.2018 09:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 23-07-18 19:12:58, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 23.07.2018 13:45, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>> On 07/20/2018 02:34 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> Dumping tools (like makedumpfile) right now don't exclude reserved pages.
>>>>>> So reserved pages might be access by dump tools although nobody except
>>>>>> the owner should touch them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure about that? Or maybe I understand wrong. Maybe it changed
>>>>> recently, but IIRC pages that are backing memmap (struct pages) are also
>>>>> PG_reserved. And you definitely do want those in the dump.
>>>>
>>>> I proposed a new flag/value to mask pages that are logically offline but
>>>> Michal wanted me to go into this direction.
>>>>
>>>> While we can special case struct pages in dump tools ("we have to
>>>> read/interpret them either way, so we can also dump them"), it smells
>>>> like my original attempt was cleaner. Michal?
>>>
>>> But we do not have many page flags spare and even if we have one or two
>>> this doesn't look like the use for them. So I still think we should try
>>> the PageReserved way.
>>>
>>
>> So as a summary, the only real approach that would be acceptable is
>> using PageReserved + some other identifier to mark pages as "logically
>> offline".
>>
>> I wonder what identifier could be used, as this has to be consistent for
>> all reserved pages (to avoid false positives).
>>
>> Using other pageflags in combination might be possible, but then we have
>> to make assumptions about all users of PageReserved right now.
>>
>> As far as I can see (and as has been discussed), page_type could be
>> used. If we don't want to consume a new bit, we could overload/reuse the
>> "PG_balloon" bit.
>>
>>
>> E.g. "PG_balloon" set -> exclude page from dump
>
> Does each user of PG_balloon check for PG_reserved? If this is the case
> then yes this would be OK.
>
I can only spot one user of PageBalloon() at all (fs/proc/page.c) ,
which makes me wonder if this bit is actually still relevant. I think
the last "real" user was removed with
commit b1123ea6d3b3da25af5c8a9d843bd07ab63213f4
Author: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Date: Tue Jul 26 15:23:09 2016 -0700
mm: balloon: use general non-lru movable page feature
Now, VM has a feature to migrate non-lru movable pages so balloon
doesn't need custom migration hooks in migrate.c and compaction.c.
The only user of PG_balloon in general is
"include/linux/balloon_compaction.h", used effectively only by
virtio_balloon.
All such pages are allocated via balloon_page_alloc() and never set
reserved.
So to me it looks like PG_balloon could be easily reused, especially to
also exclude virtio-balloon pages from dumps.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists