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 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 Dec 2020 14:04:48 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        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


> Am 18.12.2020 um 13:43 schrieb Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>:
> 
> 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.
> 

How is concurrent migration handled? Like memory offlining, compaction, alloc_contig_range() while trying to pin?


>> --
>> Michal Hocko
>> SUSE Labs
>