linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] mm, thp: introduce FOLL_SPLIT

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: <04FB43C3-6E2B-4868-B9D5-C00342DA5C6F@fb.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:10:11 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "matthew.wilcox@...cle.com" <matthew.wilcox@...cle.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "william.kucharski@...cle.com" <william.kucharski@...cle.com>,
        "srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] mm, thp: introduce FOLL_SPLIT_PMD



> On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 07/30, Song Liu wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 30, 2019, at 9:11 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So after the next patch we have a single user of FOLL_SPLIT_PMD (uprobes)
>>> and a single user of FOLL_SPLIT: arch/s390/mm/gmap.c:thp_split_mm().
>>> 
>>> Hmm.
>> 
>> I think this is what we want. :)
> 
> We? I don't ;)
> 
>> FOLL_SPLIT is the fallback solution for users who cannot handle THP.
> 
> and again, we have a single user: thp_split_mm(). I do not know if it
> can use FOLL_SPLIT_PMD or not, may be you can take a look...

I haven't played with s390, so it gonna take me some time to ramp up. 
I will add it to my to-do list. 

> 
>> With
>> more THP aware code, there will be fewer users of FOLL_SPLIT.
> 
> Fewer than 1? Good ;)

Yes! It will be great if thp_split_mm() can use FOLL_SPLIT_PMD 
instead. 

> 
>>>> @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> 		spin_unlock(ptl);
>>>> 		return follow_page_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags, &ctx->pgmap);
>>>> 	}
>>>> -	if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
>>>> +	if (flags & (FOLL_SPLIT | FOLL_SPLIT_PMD)) {
>>>> 		int ret;
>>>> 		page = pmd_page(*pmd);
>>>> 		if (is_huge_zero_page(page)) {
>>>> @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> 			split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
>>>> 			if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
>>>> 				ret = -EBUSY;
>>>> -		} else {
>>>> +		} else if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
>>>> 			if (unlikely(!try_get_page(page))) {
>>>> 				spin_unlock(ptl);
>>>> 				return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>> @@ -420,6 +420,10 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> 			put_page(page);
>>>> 			if (pmd_none(*pmd))
>>>> 				return no_page_table(vma, flags);
>>>> +		} else {  /* flags & FOLL_SPLIT_PMD */
>>>> +			spin_unlock(ptl);
>>>> +			split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
>>>> +			ret = pte_alloc(mm, pmd);
>>> 
>>> I fail to understand why this differs from the is_huge_zero_page() case above.
>> 
>> split_huge_pmd() handles is_huge_zero_page() differently. In this case, we
>> cannot use the pmd_trans_unstable() check.
> 
> Please correct me, but iiuc the problem is not that split_huge_pmd() handles
> is_huge_zero_page() differently, the problem is that __split_huge_pmd_locked()
> handles the !vma_is_anonymous(vma) differently and returns with pmd_none() = T
> after pmdp_huge_clear_flush_notify(). This means that pmd_trans_unstable() will
> fail.

Agreed. 

> 
> Now, I don't understand why do we need pmd_trans_unstable() after
> split_huge_pmd(huge-zero-pmd), but whatever reason we have, why can't we
> unify both cases?
> 
> IOW, could you explain why the path below is wrong?

I _think_ the following patch works (haven't fully tested yet). But I am not 
sure whether this is the best. By separating the two cases, we don't duplicate 
much code. And it is clear that the two cases are handled differently. 
Therefore, I would prefer to keep these separate for now. 

Thanks,
Song

> 
> 
> --- x/mm/gup.c
> +++ x/mm/gup.c
> @@ -399,14 +399,16 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> 		spin_unlock(ptl);
> 		return follow_page_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags, &ctx->pgmap);
> 	}
> -	if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
> +	if (flags & (FOLL_SPLIT | FOLL_SPLIT_PMD)) {
> 		int ret;
> 		page = pmd_page(*pmd);
> -		if (is_huge_zero_page(page)) {
> +		if ((flags & FOLL_SPLIT_PMD) || is_huge_zero_page(page)) {
> 			spin_unlock(ptl);
> -			ret = 0;
> 			split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
> -			if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
> +			ret = 0;
> +			if (pte_alloc(mm, pmd))
> +				ret = -ENOMEM;
> +			else if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
> 				ret = -EBUSY;
> 		} else {
> 			if (unlikely(!try_get_page(page))) {
>