linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 02/14] mm/gup: check every subpage of a compound page during isolation

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:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:32:22 +0000
From:   Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        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 <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        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, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 02/14] mm/gup: check every subpage of a compound page
 during isolation

On 2/3/21 2:51 PM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 8:23 AM Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/25/21 7:47 PM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>>> When pages are isolated in check_and_migrate_movable_pages() we skip
>>> compound number of pages at a time. However, as Jason noted, it is
>>> not necessary correct that pages[i] corresponds to the pages that
>>> we skipped. This is because it is possible that the addresses in
>>> this range had split_huge_pmd()/split_huge_pud(), and these functions
>>> do not update the compound page metadata.
>>>
>>> The problem can be reproduced if something like this occurs:
>>>
>>> 1. User faulted huge pages.
>>> 2. split_huge_pmd() was called for some reason
>>> 3. User has unmapped some sub-pages in the range
>>> 4. User tries to longterm pin the addresses.
>>>
>>> The resulting pages[i] might end-up having pages which are not compound
>>> size page aligned.
>>>
>>> Fixes: aa712399c1e8 ("mm/gup: speed up check_and_migrate_cma_pages() on huge page")
>>> Reported-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>               /*
>>>                * If we get a page from the CMA zone, since we are going to
>>>                * be pinning these entries, we might as well move them out
>>> @@ -1599,8 +1596,6 @@ static long check_and_migrate_cma_pages(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>                               }
>>>                       }
>>>               }
>>> -
>>> -             i += step;
>>>       }
>>>
>>
> 
> Hi Joao,
> 
>> With this, longterm gup will 'regress' for hugetlbfs e.g. from ~6k -> ~32k usecs when
>> pinning a 16G hugetlb file.
> 
> Estimate or you actually measured?
> 
It's what I had measured before sending. The ~ is because there's error variance.

>>
> 
>> Splitting can only occur on THP right? If so, perhaps we could retain the @step increment
> 
> Yes, I do not think we can split HugePage, only THP.
> 
Right, that's my impression too.

>> for compound pages but when !is_transparent_hugepage(head) or just PageHuge(head) like:
>>
>> +               if (!is_transparent_hugepage(head) && PageCompound(page))
>> +                       i += (compound_nr(head) - (pages[i] - head));
>>
>> Or making specific to hugetlbfs:
>>
>> +               if (PageHuge(head))
>> +                       i += (compound_nr(head) - (pages[i] - head));
> 
> Yes, this is reasonable optimization. I will submit a follow up patch
> against linux-next.