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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 12:35:42 -0500
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.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>, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] mm: apply per-task gfp constraints in fast path

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 3:25 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue 15-12-20 00:20:39, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > Ack to this.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > >
> > > But I do not really understand this. All allocation contexts should have
> > > a proper gfp mask so why do we have to call current_gfp_context here?
> > > In fact moving the current_gfp_context in the allocator path should have
> > > made all this games unnecessary. Memcg reclaim path might need some
> > > careful check because gfp mask is used more creative there but the
> > > general reclaim paths should be ok.
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > >
> > > Again, why do we need this when the gfp_mask
> > > >       };
> > > >
> > --
> >
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > Beside from __alloc_pages_nodemask(), the current_gfp_context() is
> > called from the following six functions:
> >
> > try_to_free_pages()
> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
> > __node_reclaim()
> > __need_fs_reclaim()
> > alloc_contig_range()
> > pcpu_alloc()
> >
> > As I understand, the idea is that because the allocator now honors
> > gfp_context values for all paths, the call can be removed from some of
> > the above functions. I think you are correct. But, at least from a
> > quick glance, this is not obvious, and is not the case for all of the
> > above functions.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > alloc_contig_range()
> >   __alloc_contig_migrate_range
> >    isolate_migratepages_range
> >      isolate_migratepages_block
> >         /*
> >          * Only allow to migrate anonymous pages in GFP_NOFS context
> >          * because those do not depend on fs locks.
> >          */
> >        if (!(cc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && page_mapping(page))
> >           goto isolate_fail;
> >
> > If we remove current_gfp_context() from alloc_contig_range(), the
> > cc->gfp_mask will not be updated with proper __GFP_FS flag.
>
> I do not think I was proposing to drop current_gfp_context from
> alloc_contig_range. ACR needs some work to be properly scoped gfp mask
> aware. This should be addressed but I do not think think the code
> works properly now so I wouldn't lose sleep over it in this series. At
> least __alloc_contig_migrate_range should follow the gfp mask given to
> alloc_contig_range.
>
> > I have studied some other paths, and they are also convoluted.
> > Therefore, I am worried about performing this optimization in this
> > series.
>
> Dropping current_gfp_context from the reclaim context should be done in
> a separate patch. I didn't mean to push for this here. All I meant was
> to simply not touch gfp/zone_idx in the reclaim path. The changelog
> should call out that the page allocator always provides proper gfp mask.

I see what you mean. I will remove reclaim changes, and will add a
note to changelog.

Thank you,
Pasha

>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists