| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtXWBThxT26B9nD+zNVoU9BcK_G8uwqqTBCCwCeXG0AuxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:01:58 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, paulmck@...nel.org,
mchehab+huawei@...nel.org, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, oneukum@...e.com,
anshuman.khandual@....com, jroedel@...e.de,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
Xiongchun duan <duanxiongchun@...edance.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v14 4/8] mm: hugetlb: alloc the vmemmap
pages associated with each HugeTLB page
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 7:54 PM Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 11:50:39AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > When we free a HugeTLB page to the buddy allocator, we should allocate the
> > vmemmap pages associated with it. But we may cannot allocate vmemmap pages
> > when the system is under memory pressure, in this case, we just refuse to
> > free the HugeTLB page instead of looping forever trying to allocate the
> > pages.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > index 4cfca27c6d32..5518283aa667 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -1397,16 +1397,26 @@ static void __free_huge_page(struct page *page)
> > h->resv_huge_pages++;
> >
> > if (HPageTemporary(page)) {
> > - list_del(&page->lru);
> > ClearHPageTemporary(page);
> > +
> > + if (alloc_huge_page_vmemmap(h, page, GFP_ATOMIC)) {
> > + h->surplus_huge_pages++;
> > + h->surplus_huge_pages_node[nid]++;
> > + goto enqueue;
> > + }
> > + list_del(&page->lru);
> > update_and_free_page(h, page);
> > } else if (h->surplus_huge_pages_node[nid]) {
> > + if (alloc_huge_page_vmemmap(h, page, GFP_ATOMIC))
> > + goto enqueue;
> > +
> > /* remove the page from active list */
> > list_del(&page->lru);
> > update_and_free_page(h, page);
> > h->surplus_huge_pages--;
> > h->surplus_huge_pages_node[nid]--;
> > } else {
> > +enqueue:
> > arch_clear_hugepage_flags(page);
> > enqueue_huge_page(h, page);
>
> Ok, we just keep them in the pool in case we fail to allocate.
>
>
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c b/mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c
> > index ddd872ab6180..0bd6b8d7282d 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c
> > @@ -169,6 +169,8 @@
> > * (last) level. So this type of HugeTLB page can be optimized only when its
> > * size of the struct page structs is greater than 2 pages.
>
> [...]
>
> > +int alloc_huge_page_vmemmap(struct hstate *h, struct page *head, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + unsigned long vmemmap_addr = (unsigned long)head;
> > + unsigned long vmemmap_end, vmemmap_reuse;
> > +
> > + if (!free_vmemmap_pages_per_hpage(h))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + vmemmap_addr += RESERVE_VMEMMAP_SIZE;
> > + vmemmap_end = vmemmap_addr + free_vmemmap_pages_size_per_hpage(h);
> > + vmemmap_reuse = vmemmap_addr - PAGE_SIZE;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The pages which the vmemmap virtual address range [@vmemmap_addr,
> > + * @vmemmap_end) are mapped to are freed to the buddy allocator, and
> > + * the range is mapped to the page which @vmemmap_reuse is mapped to.
> > + * When a HugeTLB page is freed to the buddy allocator, previously
> > + * discarded vmemmap pages must be allocated and remapping.
> > + */
> > + ret = vmemmap_remap_alloc(vmemmap_addr, vmemmap_end, vmemmap_reuse,
> > + gfp_mask | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_THISNODE);
>
> Why don't you set all the GFP flags here?
Originally, I wanted to let the caller know the GFP flag which they
used. But setting all the GFP flags here also makes sense to me.
And we can remove the @gfp_mask parameter of the
alloc_huge_page_vmemmap. It is simple.
>
> vmemmap_remap_alloc(vmemmap_addr, vmemmap_end, vmemmap_reuse, GFP_ATOMIC|
> __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_THISNODE) ?
I will use this.
>
> > diff --git a/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c b/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
> > index 50c1dc00b686..277eb43aebd5 100644
> > --- a/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
>
> [...]
>
> > +static int alloc_vmemmap_page_list(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> > + gfp_t gfp_mask, struct list_head *list)
>
> I think it would make more sense for this function to get the nid and the
> nr_pages to allocate directly.
Just like alloc_pages(), right? If so, make sense to me.
>
> > +{
> > + unsigned long addr;
> > + int nid = page_to_nid((const void *)start);
>
> Uh, that void is a bit ugly. page_to_nid(struct page *)start).
> Do not need the const either.
OK. Will do. Thanks.
>
> > + struct page *page, *next;
> > +
> > + for (addr = start; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > + page = alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp_mask, 0);
> > + if (!page)
> > + goto out;
> > + list_add_tail(&page->lru, list);
> > + }
>
> and replace this by while(--nr_pages) etc.
OK. Will do.
>
> I did not really go in depth, but looks good to me, and much more simply
> overall.
Yeah. The series only has 8 patches now. It is simpler.
>
> The only thing I am not sure about is the use of GFP_ATOMIC.
> It has been raised before than when we are close to OOM, the user might want
> to try to free up some memory by dissolving free_huge_pages, and so we might
> want to dip in the reserves.
>
> Given the fact that we are prepared to fail, and that we do not retry, I would
> rather use GFP_KERNEL than to have X pages atomically allocated and then realize
> we need to drop them on the ground because we cannot go further at some point.
> I think those reserves would be better off used by someone else in that
> situation.
>
> But this is just my thoughs, and given the fact that there seems to be a consensus
> of susing GFP_ATOMIC.
>
> --
> Oscar Salvador
> SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists