linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: Re: [RFC] autonuma: Support to scan page table asynchronously

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: <20200417124437.25445-1-sjpark@amazon.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:44:37 +0200
From:   SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
CC:     SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [RFC] autonuma: Support to scan page table asynchronously

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:16:29 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:21:29PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:04:17 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 09:05:08AM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > I think the main idea of DAMON[1] might be able to applied here.  Have you
> > > > considered it?
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200406130938.14066-1-sjpark@amazon.com/
> > > 
> > > I've ignored that entire thing after you said the information it
> > > provides was already available through the PMU.
> > 
> > Sorry if my answer made you confused.  What I wanted to say was that the
> > fundamental access checking mechanism that DAMON depends on is PTE Accessed bit
> > for now, but it could be modified to use PMU or other features instead. 
> 
> I would not be inclined to lean towards either approach for NUMA
> balancing. Fiddling with the accessed bit can have consequences for page
> aging and residency -- fine for debugging a problem, not to fine for
> normal usage. I would expect the PMU approach would have high overhead
> as well as taking over a PMU counter that userspace debugging may expect
> to be available.

Good point.  But, isn't it ok to use Accessed bit as long as PG_Idle and
PG_Young is adjusted properly?  Current DAMON implementation does so, as
idle_page_tracking also does.

That said, the core logics of DAMON and the underlying access check primitive
are logically seperated.  I am planning[1] to further entirely seperate those
and let users to be able to use right access check promitive for their needs.

If I'm missing something, please let me know.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200409094232.29680-1-sjpark@amazon.com/


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

> 
> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs