linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] mm/page_alloc: place pages to tail in __putback_isolated

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:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:29:06 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Scott Cheloha <cheloha@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] mm/page_alloc: place pages to tail in
 __putback_isolated_page()

On 18.09.20 04:16, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 08:34:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> __putback_isolated_page() already documents that pages will be placed to
>> the tail of the freelist - this is, however, not the case for
>> "order >= MAX_ORDER - 2" (see buddy_merge_likely()) - which should be
>> the case for all existing users.
>>
>> This change affects two users:
>> - free page reporting
>> - page isolation, when undoing the isolation.
>>
>> This behavior is desireable for pages that haven't really been touched
>> lately, so exactly the two users that don't actually read/write page
>> content, but rather move untouched pages.
>>
>> The new behavior is especially desirable for memory onlining, where we
>> allow allocation of newly onlined pages via undo_isolate_page_range()
>> in online_pages(). Right now, we always place them to the head of the
>> free list, resulting in undesireable behavior: Assume we add
>> individual memory chunks via add_memory() and online them right away to
>> the NORMAL zone. We create a dependency chain of unmovable allocations
>> e.g., via the memmap. The memmap of the next chunk will be placed onto
>> previous chunks - if the last block cannot get offlined+removed, all
>> dependent ones cannot get offlined+removed. While this can already be
>> observed with individual DIMMs, it's more of an issue for virtio-mem
>> (and I suspect also ppc DLPAR).
>>
>> Note: If we observe a degradation due to the changed page isolation
>> behavior (which I doubt), we can always make this configurable by the
>> instance triggering undo of isolation (e.g., alloc_contig_range(),
>> memory onlining, memory offlining).
>>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
>> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Scott Cheloha <cheloha@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 91cefb8157dd..bba9a0f60c70 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -89,6 +89,12 @@ typedef int __bitwise fop_t;
>>  */
>> #define FOP_SKIP_REPORT_NOTIFY	((__force fop_t)BIT(0))
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Place the freed page to the tail of the freelist after buddy merging. Will
>> + * get ignored with page shuffling enabled.
>> + */
>> +#define FOP_TO_TAIL		((__force fop_t)BIT(1))
>> +
>> /* prevent >1 _updater_ of zone percpu pageset ->high and ->batch fields */
>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(pcp_batch_high_lock);
>> #define MIN_PERCPU_PAGELIST_FRACTION	(8)
>> @@ -1040,6 +1046,8 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn,
>>
>> 	if (is_shuffle_order(order))
>> 		to_tail = shuffle_pick_tail();
>> +	else if (fop_flags & FOP_TO_TAIL)
>> +		to_tail = true;
> 
> Take another look into this part. Maybe we can move this check at top?
> 
> For online_page case, currently we have following call flow:
> 
>     online_page
>         online_pages_range
> 	shuffle_zone
> 
> This means we would always shuffle the newly added pages. Maybe we don't need
> to do the shuffle when adding them to the free_list?

Yeah we don't, but it doesn't really buy us too much as the call paths I
am touching are used by other mechanisms as well that need it
(especially undoing page isolation).

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb