linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: migration: fix migration of huge PMD shared pages

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: <20180823103352.GZ29735@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:33:52 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: migration: fix migration of huge PMD shared
 pages

On Thu 23-08-18 11:21:12, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 09:30:35AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 22-08-18 09:48:16, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > On 08/22/2018 05:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 21-08-18 18:10:42, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > > >> index eb477809a5c0..8cf853a4b093 100644
> > > >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > > >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > > >> @@ -1362,11 +1362,21 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > >>  	}
> > > >>  
> > > >>  	/*
> > > >> -	 * We have to assume the worse case ie pmd for invalidation. Note that
> > > >> -	 * the page can not be free in this function as call of try_to_unmap()
> > > >> -	 * must hold a reference on the page.
> > > >> +	 * For THP, we have to assume the worse case ie pmd for invalidation.
> > > >> +	 * For hugetlb, it could be much worse if we need to do pud
> > > >> +	 * invalidation in the case of pmd sharing.
> > > >> +	 *
> > > >> +	 * Note that the page can not be free in this function as call of
> > > >> +	 * try_to_unmap() must hold a reference on the page.
> > > >>  	 */
> > > >>  	end = min(vma->vm_end, start + (PAGE_SIZE << compound_order(page)));
> > > >> +	if (PageHuge(page)) {
> > > >> +		/*
> > > >> +		 * If sharing is possible, start and end will be adjusted
> > > >> +		 * accordingly.
> > > >> +		 */
> > > >> +		(void)huge_pmd_sharing_possible(vma, &start, &end);
> > > >> +	}
> > > >>  	mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(vma->vm_mm, start, end);
> > > > 
> > > > I do not get this part. Why don't we simply unconditionally invalidate
> > > > the whole huge page range?
> > > 
> > > In this routine, we are only unmapping a single page.  The existing code
> > > is limiting the invalidate range to that page size: 4K or 2M.  With shared
> > > PMDs, we have the possibility of unmapping a PUD_SIZE area: 1G.  I don't
> > > think we want to unconditionally invalidate 1G.  Is that what you are asking?
> > 
> > But we know that huge_pmd_unshare unmapped a shared pte so we know when
> > to flush 2MB or 1GB. I really do not like how huge_pmd_sharing_possible
> > a) duplicates some checks and b) it updates start/stop out of line.
> 
> My reading on this is that mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() has to be
> called from sleepable context on the full range that *can* be invalidated
> before following mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end().
> 
> In this case huge_pmd_unshare() may unmap aligned PUD_SIZE around the PMD
> page that effectively enlarge range that has to be covered by
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(). We cannot yet know if there's any
> shared page tables in the range, so we need to go with worst case
> scenario.
> 
> I don't see conceptually better solution than what is proposed.

I was thinking we would just pull PageHuge outside of the
page_vma_mapped_walk. I thought it would look much more straightforward
but I've tried to put something together and it grown into an ugly code
as well. So going the Mike's way might be a better option after all.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs