linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] mm/migrate: clear __GFP_RECLAIM for THP allocation for migration

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, 9 Jul 2020 16:17:08 +0900
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@....com,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] mm/migrate: clear __GFP_RECLAIM for THP
 allocation for migration

2020년 7월 7일 (화) 오후 9:17, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>님이 작성:
>
> On 7/7/20 9:44 AM, js1304@...il.com wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> >
> > In mm/migrate.c, THP allocation for migration is called with the provided
> > gfp_mask | GFP_TRANSHUGE. This gfp_mask contains __GFP_RECLAIM and it
> > would be conflict with the intention of the GFP_TRANSHUGE.
> >
> > GFP_TRANSHUGE/GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT is introduced to control the reclaim
> > behaviour by well defined manner since overhead of THP allocation is
> > quite large and the whole system could suffer from it. So, they deals
> > with __GFP_RECLAIM mask deliberately. If gfp_mask contains __GFP_RECLAIM
> > and uses gfp_mask | GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT) for THP allocation, it means
> > that it breaks the purpose of the GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT).
> >
> > This patch fixes this situation by clearing __GFP_RECLAIM in provided
> > gfp_mask. Note that there are some other THP allocations for migration
> > and they just uses GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT) directly. This patch would make
> > all THP allocation for migration consistent.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> > ---
> >  mm/migrate.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > index 02b31fe..ecd7615 100644
> > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > @@ -1547,6 +1547,11 @@ struct page *new_page_nodemask(struct page *page,
> >       }
> >
> >       if (PageTransHuge(page)) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * clear __GFP_RECALIM since GFP_TRANSHUGE is the gfp_mask
> > +              * that chooses the reclaim masks deliberately.
> > +              */
> > +             gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_RECLAIM;
> >               gfp_mask |= GFP_TRANSHUGE;
>
> In addition to what Michal said...
>
> The mask is not passed to this function, so I would just redefine it, as is done
> in the hugetlb case. We probably don't even need the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL for the
> THP case asi it's just there to prevent OOM kill (per commit 0f55685627d6d ) and
> the costly order of THP is enough for that.

As I said in another reply, provided __GFP_THISNODE should be handled
so just redefining it would not work.

Thanks.