linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] mm/gup: limit number of gup migration failures, honor failures

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: <CA+CK2bCn++2Sk4-Eunibj6f+JoOL77uJQXGU2+dScHQ3RgC7_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 07:43:15 -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>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] mm/gup: limit number of gup migration failures,
 honor failures

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:46 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 17-12-20 13:52:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> [...]
> > +#define PINNABLE_MIGRATE_MAX 10
> > +#define PINNABLE_ISOLATE_MAX 100
>
> Why would we need to limit the isolation retries. Those should always be
> temporary failure unless I am missing something.

Actually, during development, I was retrying isolate errors
infinitely, but during testing found a hung where when FOLL_TOUCH
without FOLL_WRITE is passed (fault in kernel without write flag), the
zero page is faulted. The isolation of the zero page was failing every
time, therefore the process was hanging.

Since then, I fixed this problem by adding FOLL_WRITE unconditionally
to FOLL_LONGTERM, but I was worried about other possible bugs that
would cause hangs, so decided to limit isolation errors. If you think
it its not necessary, I can unlimit isolate retires.

> I am not sure about the
> PINNABLE_MIGRATE_MAX either. Why do we want to limit that? migrate_pages
> already implements its retry logic why do you want to count retries on
> top of that? I do agree that the existing logic is suboptimal because

True, but again, just recently, I worked on a race bug where pages can
end up in per-cpu list after lru_add_drain_all() but before isolation,
so I think retry is necessary.

> the migration failure might be ephemeral or permanent but that should be
> IMHO addressed at migrate_pages (resp. unmap_and_move) and simply report
> failures that are permanent - e.g. any potential pre-existing long term
> pin - if that is possible at all. If not what would cause permanent
> migration failure? OOM?

Yes, OOM is the main cause for migration failures. And also a few
cases described in movable zone comment, where it is possible during
boot some pages can be allocated by memblock in movable zone due to
lack of memory resources (even if those resources were added later),
hardware page poisoning is another rare example.

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs