linux-kernel - Re: Thoughts on simple scanner approach for free page hinting

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: <f25504a0-9763-5184-7b7e-ba618c99f4a2@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:43:58 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, lcapitulino@...hat.com,
        pagupta@...hat.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
        Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, dodgen@...gle.com,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        dhildenb@...hat.com, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on simple scanner approach for free page hinting

On 09.04.19 15:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:36:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 09.04.19 15:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 11:20:36AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> BTW I like the idea of allocating pages that have already been hinted as
>>>> last "choice", allocating pages that have not been hinted yet first.
>>>
>>> OK I guess but note this is just a small window during which
>>> not all pages have been hinted.
>>
>> Yes, good point. It might sound desirable but might be completely
>> irrelevant in practice.
>>
>>>
>>> So if we actually think this has value then we need
>>> to design something that will desist and not drop pages
>>> in steady state too.
>>
>> By dropping, you mean dropping hints of e.g. MAX_ORDER - 1 or e.g. not
>> reporting MAX_ORDER - 3?
> 
> I mean the issue is host unmaps the pages from guest right?  That is
> what makes hinted pages slower than non-hinted ones.  If we do not want
> that to happen for some pages, then either host can defer acting on the
> hint, or we can defer hinting.

Ah right, I think what Alex mentioned is that pages processed in the
hypervisor via MADVISE_FREE will be set RO, so the kernel can detect if
they will actually be used again, resulting int

1. A pagefault if written and the page(s) have not been reused by the host
2. A pagefault if read/written if the page(s) have been reused by the host

Now, assuming hinting is fast,  most pages will be hinted right away and
therefore result in pagefaults. I think this is what you meant.

Deferring processing in the hypervisor cannot be done after a request
has been marked as processed and handed back to the guest. (otherwise
pages might already get reused)

So pages would have to "age" in the guest instead before they might be
worth hinting. Marking pages as "Offline" alone won't help. Agreed.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb