linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 4/9] mm: hugetlb: alloc the vmemmap pages associated with each HugeTLB page

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: <YEoKa5oSm/hdgt5V@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:17:47 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, corbet@....net,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mchehab+huawei@...nel.org,
        pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        oneukum@...e.com, anshuman.khandual@....com, jroedel@...e.de,
        almasrymina@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org,
        osalvador@...e.de, song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com, david@...hat.com,
        naoya.horiguchi@....com, joao.m.martins@...cle.com,
        duanxiongchun@...edance.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Chen Huang <chenhuang5@...wei.com>,
        Bodeddula Balasubramaniam <bodeddub@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 4/9] mm: hugetlb: alloc the vmemmap pages associated
 with each HugeTLB page

On Thu 11-03-21 09:40:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-03-21 15:28:51, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:10:12PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > On 3/10/21 1:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:11:22PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >> On Wed 10-03-21 10:56:08, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > >>> On 3/10/21 7:19 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >>>> On Mon 08-03-21 18:28:02, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > >>>> [...]
> > > >>>>> @@ -1447,7 +1486,7 @@ void free_huge_page(struct page *page)
> > > >>>>>  	/*
> > > >>>>>  	 * Defer freeing if in non-task context to avoid hugetlb_lock deadlock.
> > > >>>>>  	 */
> > > >>>>> -	if (!in_task()) {
> > > >>>>> +	if (in_atomic()) {
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> As I've said elsewhere in_atomic doesn't work for CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n.
> > > >>>> We need this change for other reasons and so it would be better to pull
> > > >>>> it out into a separate patch which also makes HUGETLB depend on
> > > >>>> PREEMPT_COUNT.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, the issue of calling put_page for hugetlb pages from any context
> > > >>> still needs work.  IMO, that is outside the scope of this series.  We
> > > >>> already have code in this path which blocks/sleeps.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Making HUGETLB depend on PREEMPT_COUNT is too restrictive.  IIUC,
> > > >>> PREEMPT_COUNT will only be enabled if we enable:
> > > >>> PREEMPT "Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)"
> > > >>> PREEMPT_RT "Fully Preemptible Kernel (Real-Time)"
> > > >>> or, other 'debug' options.  These are not enabled in 'more common'
> > > >>> kernels.  Of course, we do not want to disable HUGETLB in common
> > > >>> configurations.
> > > >>
> > > >> I haven't tried that but PREEMPT_COUNT should be selectable even without
> > > >> any change to the preemption model (e.g. !PREEMPT).
> > > > 
> > > > It works reliably for me, for example as in the diff below.  So,
> > > > as Michal says, you should be able to add "select PREEMPT_COUNT" to
> > > > whatever Kconfig option you need to.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks Paul.
> > > 
> > > I may have been misreading Michal's suggestion of "make HUGETLB depend on
> > > PREEMPT_COUNT".  We could "select PREEMPT_COUNT" if HUGETLB is enabled.
> > > However, since HUGETLB is enabled in most configs, then this would
> > > result in PREEMPT_COUNT also being enabled in most configs.  I honestly
> > > do not know how much this will cost us?  I assume that if it was free or
> > > really cheap it would already be always on?
> > 
> > There are a -lot- of configs out there, so are you sure that HUGETLB is
> > really enabled in most of them?  ;-)
> 
> It certainly is enabled for all distribution kernels and many are
> !PREEMPT so I believe this is what Mike was concerned about.
> 
> > More seriously, I was going by earlier emails in this and related threads
> > plus Michal's "PREEMPT_COUNT should be selectable".  But there are other
> > situations that would like PREEMPT_COUNT.  And to your point, some who
> > would rather PREEMPT_COUNT not be universally enabled.  I haven't seen
> > any performance or kernel-size numbers from any of them, however.
> 
> Yeah per cpu preempt counting shouldn't be noticeable but I have to
> confess I haven't benchmarked it.

But all this seems moot now http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YEoA08n60+jzsnAl@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs