linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: host: xhci: allow __GFP

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: <20190517163420.GG31704@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 May 2019 09:34:20 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>, ytk.lee@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: host: xhci: allow __GFP_FS in dma allocation

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 01:02:28AM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> Hello I don't have enough knowledge on USB core but I've wondered
> why GFP_NOIO has been used in xhci_alloc_dev for
> xhci_alloc_virt_device. I found commit ("a6d940dd759b xhci: Use
> GFP_NOIO during device reset"). But can we just change GFP_NOIO
> to __GFP_RECLAIM | __GFP_FS ?

No.  __GFP_FS implies __GFP_IO; you can't set __GFP_FS and clear __GFP_IO.

It seems like the problem you have is using the CMA to do DMA allocation.
Why would you do such a thing?

> Please refer to below case.
> 
> I got a report from Lee YongTaek <ytk.lee@...sung.com> that the
> xhci_alloc_virt_device was too slow over 2 seconds only for one page
> allocation.
> 
> 1) It was because kernel version was v4.14 and DMA allocation was
> done from CMA(Contiguous Memory Allocator) where CMA region was
> almost filled with file page and  CMA passes GFP down to page
> isolation. And the page isolation only allows file page isolation only to
> requests having __GFP_FS.
> 
> 2) Historically CMA was changed at v4.19 to use GFP_KERNEL
> regardless of GFP passed to  DMA allocation through the
> commit 6518202970c1 "(mm/cma: remove unsupported gfp_mask
> parameter from cma_alloc()".
> 
> I think pre v4.19 the xhci_alloc_virt_device could be very slow
> depending on CMA situation but free to USB deadlock issue. But as of
> v4.19, I think, it will be fast but can face the deadlock issue.
> Consequently I think to meet the both cases, I think USB can pass
> __GFP_FS without __GFP_IO.
> 
> If __GFP_FS is passed from USB core, of course, the CMA patch also
> need to be changed to pass GFP.