linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: handle freed page at the first place

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]

Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:29:46 -0800
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vbabka@...e.cz,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: handle freed page at the first place



On 11/12/19 12:04 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 12-11-19 06:09:25, Yang Shi wrote:
>> When doing migration if the freed page is met, we just return without
>> migrating it since it is pointless to migrate a freed page.  But, the
>> current code did two things before handling freed page:
>>
>> 1. Return -ENOMEM if the page is THP and THP migration is not supported.
>> 2. Allocate target page unconditionally.
>>
>> Both makes not too much sense.  If we handle freed page at the first place
>> we don't have to worry about allocating/freeing target page and split
>> THP at all.
>>
>> For example (worst case) if we are trying to migrate a freed THP without
>> THP migration supported, the migrate_pages() would just split the THP then
>> retry to migrate base pages one by one by pointless allocating and freeing
>> pages, this is just waste of time.
>>
>> I didn't run into any actual problem with the current code (or I may
>> just not notice it yet), it was found by visual inspection.
> It would be preferable to accompany a change like this with some actual
> numbers. A race with page freeing should be a very rare situation. Maybe
> it is not under some workloads but that would better be checked and
> documented. I also do not like to do page state changes for THP
> migration without a support. I cannot really say this is 100% correct

However that THP will not be migrated actually, just will be freed by 
put_page().

> from top of my head and I do not see a sufficient justification to go
> and chase all those tiny details because that is time consuming.
>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/migrate.c | 18 +++++++-----------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>> index 4fe45d1..ef96997 100644
>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>> @@ -1170,13 +1170,6 @@ static ICE_noinline int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page,
>>   	int rc = MIGRATEPAGE_SUCCESS;
>>   	struct page *newpage;
>>   
>> -	if (!thp_migration_supported() && PageTransHuge(page))
>> -		return -ENOMEM;
>> -
>> -	newpage = get_new_page(page, private);
>> -	if (!newpage)
>> -		return -ENOMEM;
>> -
>>   	if (page_count(page) == 1) {
>>   		/* page was freed from under us. So we are done. */
>>   		ClearPageActive(page);
>> @@ -1187,13 +1180,16 @@ static ICE_noinline int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page,
>>   				__ClearPageIsolated(page);
>>   			unlock_page(page);
>>   		}
>> -		if (put_new_page)
>> -			put_new_page(newpage, private);
>> -		else
>> -			put_page(newpage);
>>   		goto out;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	if (!thp_migration_supported() && PageTransHuge(page))
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	newpage = get_new_page(page, private);
>> +	if (!newpage)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>>   	rc = __unmap_and_move(page, newpage, force, mode);
>>   	if (rc == MIGRATEPAGE_SUCCESS)
>>   		set_page_owner_migrate_reason(newpage, reason);
>> -- 
>> 1.8.3.1
>>