linux-kernel - 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] arm64: mm: free unused memmap for sparse memory model that define VMEMMAP

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1699CE87DE933F49876AD744B5DC140F231335A0@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jul 2020 03:40:28 +0000
From:   "liwei (CM)" <liwei213@...wei.com>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC:     "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "Xiaqing (A)" <saberlily.xia@...ilicon.com>,
        "Chenfeng (puck)" <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>,
        butao <butao@...ilicon.com>,
        fengbaopeng <fengbaopeng2@...ilicon.com>,
        "nsaenzjulienne@...e.de" <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
        "steve.capper@....com" <steve.capper@....com>,
        "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        sujunfei <sujunfei2@...ilicon.com>,
        zhaojiapeng <zhaojiapeng@...wei.com>
Subject: 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] arm64: mm: free unused memmap for sparse memory model that define VMEMMAP



-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Mike Rapoport [mailto:rppt@...ux.ibm.com] 
发送时间: 2020年7月23日 21:19
收件人: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
抄送: liwei (CM) <liwei213@...wei.com>; will@...nel.org; Xiaqing (A) <saberlily.xia@...ilicon.com>; Chenfeng (puck) <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>; butao <butao@...ilicon.com>; fengbaopeng <fengbaopeng2@...ilicon.com>; nsaenzjulienne@...e.de; steve.capper@....com; Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; sujunfei <sujunfei2@...ilicon.com>; zhaojiapeng <zhaojiapeng@...wei.com>
主题: Re: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] arm64: mm: free unused memmap for sparse memory model that define VMEMMAP

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:29:26PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 01:40:34PM +0000, liwei (CM) wrote:
> > Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 08:41:17AM +0000, liwei (CM) wrote:
> > > > Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:32:03PM +0800, Wei Li wrote:
> > > > > > For the memory hole, sparse memory model that define 
> > > > > > SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP do not free the reserved memory for the 
> > > > > > page map, this patch do it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are there numbers showing how much memory is actually freed?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The freeing of empty memmap would become rather complex with 
> > > > > these changes, do the memory savings justify it?
> > > > 
> > > > In the sparse memory model, the size of a section is 1 GB 
> > > > (SECTION_SIZE_BITS 30) by default.
> > > 
> > > Can we reduce SECTION_SIZE_BITS instead? Say 26?
> > 
> > Yes, you are right, reduce SECTION_SIZE_BITS to 26 can save almost 
> > the same memory as the patch.
> > 
> > 1) However, it is not clear whether changing the section size has 
> > any other impact.
> 
> Well, we should analyse this.
> 
> > 2) Just like the flat memory model and the sparse memory model that 
> > does not define VMEMMAP, both of them have their own ways to free 
> > unused memmap. I think we've given a similar way for sparse memory 
> > define VMEMMAP.
> 
> I think we did it for flatmem initially (on arm32) and added support 
> for sparsemem later on, so free_unused_memmap() had to cope with 
> sparse sections. On arm64 we introduced vmemmap support and didn't 
> bother with the freeing at all because of the added complexity of the 
> vmemmap page tables.
> 
> I wonder whether we should just disallow flatmem and non-vmemmap 
> sparsemem on arm64. Is there any value in keeping them around?

FLATMEM is useful for UMA systems with a single memory bank, so probably it's worth keeping it for low end machines.

Non-vmemmap sparsemem is essentially disable in arch/arm64/Kconfig, so for NUMA configurations SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP is the only choice.
 
> > 3) This explicit free unused memmap method does reduce unnecessary 
> > memory waste for users who do not notice the section size 
> > modification.
> 
> But if we changed SECTION_SIZE_BITS in the mainline kernel, then we 
> wouldn't need additional code to free the unused memmap.

Moreover if we reduce SECTION_SIZE_BITS, we can drop
free_unused_memmap() and since the arm64 memory map for sparse will not differ from other arches we can drop custom pfn_valid() as well.

Hi, Mike & Catalin

Let's think and discuss together about the impact of directly reducing the section size：

1) Currently, the memory of PC or Mobile devices are increasing. If the section size is reduced, the consumption of the section structure will also increase.

2) If the section size is too small, memory hotplug may be affected. Hotplug add or remove a memblock means that you need to online or offline many sections. In this case, software consumption may increase.

Currently, the page map is wasted when the default section size is used. In some cases, the waste is serious. Please help to check whether the section size reduction has other impacts and whether it meets the long-term evolution.

Thanks.

> --
> Catalin

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.