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  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, 20 Nov 2020 16:58:09 -0500
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, sthemmin@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: Pinning ZONE_MOVABLE pages

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:59 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Am 20.11.2020 um 21:28 schrieb Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>:
> >
> > Recently, I encountered a hang that is happening during memory hot
> > remove operation. It turns out that the hang is caused by pinned user
> > pages in ZONE_MOVABLE.
> >
> > Kernel expects that all pages in ZONE_MOVABLE can be migrated, but
> > this is not the case if a user applications such as through dpdk
> > libraries pinned them via vfio dma map. Kernel keeps trying to
> > hot-remove them, but refcnt never gets to zero, so we are looping
> > until the hardware watchdog kicks in.
> >
> > We cannot do dma unmaps before hot-remove, because hot-remove is a
> > slow operation, and we have thousands for network flows handled by
> > dpdk that we just cannot suspend for the duration of hot-remove
> > operation.
> >
>
> Hi!
>
> It‘s a known problem also for VMs using vfio. I thought about this some while ago an came to the same conclusion: before performing long-term pinnings, we have to migrate pages off the movable zone. After that, it‘s too late.
>
> What happens when we can‘t migrate (OOM on !MOVABLE memory, short-term pinning)? TBD.
>
> > The solution is for dpdk to allocate pages from a zone below
> > ZONE_MOVAVLE, i.e. ZONE_NORMAL/ZONE_HIGHMEM, but this is not possible.
> > There is no user interface that we have that allows applications to
> > select what zone the memory should come from.
> >
> > I've spoken with Stephen Hemminger, and he said that DPDK is moving in
> > the direction of using transparent huge pages instead of HugeTLBs,
> > which means that we need to allow at least anonymous, and anonymous
> > transparent huge pages to come from non-movable zones on demand.
> >
> > Here is what I am proposing:
> > 1. Add a new flag that is passed through pin_user_pages_* down to
> > fault handlers, and allow the fault handler to allocate from a
> > non-movable zone.
> >
> > Sample function stacks through which this info needs to be passed is this:
> >
> > pin_user_pages_remote(gup_flags)
> > __get_user_pages_remote(gup_flags)
> >  __gup_longterm_locked(gup_flags)
> >   __get_user_pages_locked(gup_flags)
> >    __get_user_pages(gup_flags)
> >     faultin_page(gup_flags)
> >      Convert gup_flags into fault_flags
> >      handle_mm_fault(fault_flags)
> >
> > From handle_mm_fault(), the stack diverges into various faults,
> > examples include:
> >
> > Transparent Huge Page
> > handle_mm_fault(fault_flags)
> > __handle_mm_fault(fault_flags)
> > Create: struct vm_fault vmf, use fault_flags to specify correct gfp_mask
> > create_huge_pmd(vmf);
> > do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page(vmf);
> > mm_get_huge_zero_page(vma->vm_mm); -> flag is lost, so flag from
> > vmf.gfp_mask should be passed as well.
> >
> > There are several other similar paths in a transparent huge page, also
> > there is a named path where allocation is based on filesystems, and
> > the flag should be honored there as well, but it does not have to be
> > added at the same time.
> >
> > Regular Pages
> > handle_mm_fault(fault_flags)
> > __handle_mm_fault(fault_flags)
> > Create: struct vm_fault vmf, use fault_flags to specify correct gfp_mask
> > handle_pte_fault(vmf)
> > do_anonymous_page(vmf);
> > page = alloc_zeroed_user_highpage_movable(vma, vmf->address); ->
> > replace change this call according to gfp_mask.
> >
> > The above only take care of the case if user application faults on the
> > page during pinning time, but there are also cases where pages already
> > exist.
> >
> > 2. Add an internal move_pages_zone() similar to move_pages() syscall
> > but instead of migrating to a different NUMA node, migrate pages from
> > ZONE_MOVABLE to another zone.
> > Call move_pages_zone() on demand prior to pinning pages from
> > vfio_pin_map_dma() for instance.
> >
> > 3. Perhaps, it also makes sense to add madvise() flag, to allocate
> > pages from non-movable zone. When a user application knows that it
> > will do DMA mapping, and pin pages for a long time, the memory that it
> > allocates should never be migrated or hot-removed, so make sure that
> > it comes from the appropriate place.
> > The benefit of adding madvise() flag is that we won't have to deal
> > with slow page migration during pin time, but the disadvantage is that
> > we would need to change the user interface.
> >
>
> Hm, I am not sure we want to expose these details. What would be the semantics? „Might pin“? Hm, not sure.

The semantic would be PA must not change, something that DPDK
currently excpects from huge pages, which by the way is not true, as
huge pages are migratable.

>
> Assume you start a fresh VM via QEMU with vfio. When we start mapping guest memory via vfio, that‘s usually the time memory will get populated. Not really much has to be migrated. I think this is even true during live migration.
>
> I think selective DMA pinning (e.g., vIOMMU in QEMU) is different, where we keep pinning/unpinning on demand. But I guess even here, we will often reuse some pages over and over again.
>
>
> > Before I start working on the above approaches, I would like to get an
> > opinion from the community on an appropriate path forward for this
> > problem. If what I described sounds reasonable, or if there are other
> > ideas on how to address the problem that I am seeing.
>
> At least 1 and 2 sound sane. 3 is TBD - but it‘s a pure optimization, so it can wait.

Makes sense, I am also worried about 3, but most of madvise() flags
are for pure optimization purposes: MADV_HUGEPAGE, MADV_SEQUENTIAL,
MADV_WILLNEED etc.

>
> Thanks!
>
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Pasha
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists