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]

Message-ID: <CAAmzW4PF1AXcZnQpWmqWgTShu+5v7B=nv8waRv+vk-0Bd78cZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Apr 2020 14:43:49 +0900
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        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

2020년 4월 2일 (목) 오전 11:54, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>님이 작성:
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 07:13:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:41:28 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > So I guess we keep Roman's patch on hold pending clarification of this
> > risk?
>
> The problem here is that we can't really find problems if we don't use CMA as intended
> and just leave it free. Me and Rik are actively looking for page migration problems
> in our production, and we've found and fixed some of them. Our setup is likely different
> from embedded guys who are in my understanding most active cma users, so even if we
> don't see any issues I can't guarantee it for everybody.
>
> So given Joonsoo's ack down in the thread (btw, I'm sorry I've missed a good optimization
> he suggested, will send a patch for that), I'd go with this patch at least until

Looks like you mean Minchan's ack. Anyway, I don't object this one.

In fact, I've tested this patch and your fixes for migration problem
and found that there is
still migration problem and failure rate is increased by this patch.
However, given that
there is no progress on this area for a long time, I think that
applying the change aggressively
is required to break the current situation.

Thanks.