linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc,cma: conditionally prefer cma pageblocks for movable allocations

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:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:41:28 +0900
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc,cma: conditionally prefer cma pageblocks
 for movable allocations

Hello, Roman.

2020년 3월 12일 (목) 오전 2:35, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>님이 작성:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 09:51:07AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 3/6/20 9:01 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Posting this one for Roman so I can deal with any upstream feedback and
> > > create a v2 if needed, while scratching my head over the next piece of
> > > this puzzle :)
> > >
> > > ---8<---
> > >
> > > From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > >
> > > Currently a cma area is barely used by the page allocator because
> > > it's used only as a fallback from movable, however kswapd tries
> > > hard to make sure that the fallback path isn't used.
> >
> > Few years ago Joonsoo wanted to fix these kinds of weird MIGRATE_CMA corner
> > cases by using ZONE_MOVABLE instead [1]. Unfortunately it was reverted due to
> > unresolved bugs. Perhaps the idea could be resurrected now?
>
> Hi Vlastimil!
>
> Thank you for this reminder! I actually looked at it and also asked Joonsoo in private
> about the state of this patch(set). As I understand, Joonsoo plans to resubmit
> it later this year.
>
> What Rik and I are suggesting seems to be much simpler, however it's perfectly
> possible that Joonsoo's solution is preferable long-term.
>
> So if the proposed patch looks ok for now, I'd suggest to go with it and return
> to this question once we'll have a new version of ZONE_MOVABLE solution.

Hmm... utilization is not the only matter for CMA user. The more
important one is
success guarantee of cma_alloc() and this patch would have a bad impact on it.

A few years ago, I have tested this kind of approach and found that increasing
utilization increases cma_alloc() failure. Reason is that the page
allocated with
__GFP_MOVABLE, especially, by sb_bread(), is sometimes pinned by someone.

Until now, cma memory isn't used much so this problem doesn't occur easily.
However, with this patch, it would happen.

Thanks.