| 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: <YDc0Hqk+A4wvN7jg@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 22:22:38 -0700
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, vbabka@...e.cz,
alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, guro@...com, hannes@...xchg.org,
hughd@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: test page->flags directly in page_lru()
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:55:53AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 04:50:39PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:48:46PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 03:34:16PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > > > If only somebody were working on a patch series to get rid of
> > > > > all those calls to compound_head()! Some reviews on
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210128070404.1922318-2-willy@infradead.org/
> > > > > would be nice.
> > > >
> > > > I'm on board with the idea and have done some research in this
> > > > direction. We've found that the ideal *anon* page size for Chrome OS
> > > > is not 4KB or 2MB, but 32KB. I hope we could leverage the folio to
> > > > support flexible anon page size to reduce the number of page faults
> > > > (vs 4KB) or internal fragmentation (vs 2MB).
> > > >
> > > > That being said, it seems to me this is a long term plan and right
> > > > now we need something smaller. So if you don't mind, I'll just go
> > > > ahead and remove compound_head() from Page{LRU,Active,Unevictable,
> > > > SwapBacked} first?
> > >
> > > It's really not a big change I'm suggesting here. You need
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210128070404.1922318-2-willy@infradead.org/
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210128070404.1922318-5-willy@infradead.org/
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210128070404.1922318-8-willy@infradead.org/
> > > and then the patch I sent above to create folio_lru().
> > >
> > > Then any changes you want to make to use folios more broadly will
> > > incrementally move us towards your goal of 32kB anon pages.
> >
> > Well, these patches introduce a new concept which I'm on board with.
>
> It's not really a new concept ... it's a new type for an existing concept
> (a head page).
>
> > Assume everybody else is too, it still seems to me it's an overkill
> > to employee folio to just get rid of unnecessary compound_head()
> > in page_lru() -- this is not a criticism but a compliment.
>
> It's not overkill, that really is the point of a folio! If you
> think about it, only head pages can be on the LRU list (because the
> compound_head is in the union with the lru list_head). So it
> always makes sense to talk about folios on the LRU list.
>
> > Let me work out something *conceptually* smaller first, and if you
> > think folio is absolutely more suitable even for this specific issue,
> > I'll go review and test the four patches you listed. Sounds good?
>
> Umm. It seems to me that no matter what you do, it'll be equivalent to
> this, only without the type-safety?
I'm thinking about something trivial but still very effective. So far
I've only tested it with PG_{active,unevictable}, and I'm already
seeing a 4KB gain less the 2KB loss from page_lru().
I didn't go with this at the beginning because it's also time-
consuming. I need to go over every single use of
PG_{active,unevictable,swapbacked,lru}.
add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/37 up/down: 4/-4129 (-4125)
diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index 3cec6fbef725..c866c363bb41 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static void gather_stats(struct page *page, struct numa_maps *md, int pte_dirty,
unsigned long nr_pages)
{
int count = page_mapcount(page);
+ struct page *head = compound_head(page);
md->pages += nr_pages;
if (pte_dirty || PageDirty(page))
@@ -1720,7 +1721,7 @@ static void gather_stats(struct page *page, struct numa_maps *md, int pte_dirty,
if (PageSwapCache(page))
md->swapcache += nr_pages;
- if (PageActive(page) || PageUnevictable(page))
+ if (PageActive(head) || PageUnevictable(head))
md->active += nr_pages;
if (PageWriteback(page))
diff --git a/include/linux/page-flags.h b/include/linux/page-flags.h
index db914477057b..35b3d272ab4c 100644
--- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
+++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
@@ -335,8 +335,8 @@ PAGEFLAG(Dirty, dirty, PF_HEAD) TESTSCFLAG(Dirty, dirty, PF_HEAD)
__CLEARPAGEFLAG(Dirty, dirty, PF_HEAD)
PAGEFLAG(LRU, lru, PF_HEAD) __CLEARPAGEFLAG(LRU, lru, PF_HEAD)
TESTCLEARFLAG(LRU, lru, PF_HEAD)
-PAGEFLAG(Active, active, PF_HEAD) __CLEARPAGEFLAG(Active, active, PF_HEAD)
- TESTCLEARFLAG(Active, active, PF_HEAD)
+PAGEFLAG(Active, active, PF_ONLY_HEAD) __CLEARPAGEFLAG(Active, active, PF_ONLY_HEAD)
+ TESTCLEARFLAG(Active, active, PF_ONLY_HEAD)
PAGEFLAG(Workingset, workingset, PF_HEAD)
TESTCLEARFLAG(Workingset, workingset, PF_HEAD)
__PAGEFLAG(Slab, slab, PF_NO_TAIL)
@@ -407,9 +407,9 @@ CLEARPAGEFLAG(SwapCache, swapcache, PF_NO_TAIL)
PAGEFLAG_FALSE(SwapCache)
#endif
-PAGEFLAG(Unevictable, unevictable, PF_HEAD)
- __CLEARPAGEFLAG(Unevictable, unevictable, PF_HEAD)
- TESTCLEARFLAG(Unevictable, unevictable, PF_HEAD)
+PAGEFLAG(Unevictable, unevictable, PF_ONLY_HEAD)
+ __CLEARPAGEFLAG(Unevictable, unevictable, PF_ONLY_HEAD)
+ TESTCLEARFLAG(Unevictable, unevictable, PF_ONLY_HEAD)
#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
PAGEFLAG(Mlocked, mlocked, PF_NO_TAIL)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists