linux-kernel - Re: a question of split_huge

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: <f6ce8cbe-9645-4b33-d699-663e68118bcd@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:23:57 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: a question of split_huge_page



在 2020/7/10 下午6:33, Kirill A. Shutemov 写道:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:51:58PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2020/7/10 上午12:07, Kirill A. Shutemov 写道:
>>> Right, and it's never got removed from LRU during the split. The tail
>>> pages have to be added to LRU because they now separate from the tail
>>> page.
>>>
>> According to the explaination, looks like we could remove the code path,
>> since it's never got into. (base on my v15 patchset). Any comments?
> 
> Yes. But why? It's reasonable failsafe that gives chance to recover if
> something goes wrong.
> 

Hi Kirill,

Sorry, I didn't get your points. IMHO, this fallback cann't work well,
since the head page isn't and shouldn't be added to lru. like the iommu issue
if a dma page added into lru list, it may be reclaim and lost. So, sorry, I
still don't know how this path could fix some wrong.

Thanks
Alex