linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] mm: cma: introduce cma_release

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: <YF0agS53iGkFo41Y@carbon.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 16:19:29 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        HORIGUCHI NAOYA <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] mm: cma: introduce cma_release_nowait()

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:12:51PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:15:11PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 25.03.21 17:56, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > On 3/25/21 3:22 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 25-03-21 10:56:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > On 25.03.21 01:28, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > > > > From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > cma_release() has to lock the cma_lock mutex to clear the cma bitmap.
> > > > > > It makes it a blocking function, which complicates its usage from
> > > > > > non-blocking contexts. For instance, hugetlbfs code is temporarily
> > > > > > dropping the hugetlb_lock spinlock to call cma_release().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This patch introduces a non-blocking cma_release_nowait(), which
> > > > > > postpones the cma bitmap clearance. It's done later from a work
> > > > > > context. The first page in the cma allocation is used to store
> > > > > > the work struct. Because CMA allocations and de-allocations are
> > > > > > usually not that frequent, a single global workqueue is used.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To make sure that subsequent cma_alloc() call will pass, cma_alloc()
> > > > > > flushes the cma_release_wq workqueue. To avoid a performance
> > > > > > regression in the case when only cma_release() is used, gate it
> > > > > > by a per-cma area flag, which is set by the first call
> > > > > > of cma_release_nowait().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > > > > > [mike.kravetz@...cle.com: rebased to v5.12-rc3-mmotm-2021-03-17-22-24]
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. Is there a real reason this is a mutex and not a spin lock? It seems to
> > > > > only protect the bitmap. Are bitmaps that huge that we spend a significant
> > > > > amount of time in there?
> > > > 
> > > > Good question. Looking at the code it doesn't seem that there is any
> > > > blockable operation or any heavy lifting done under the lock.
> > > > 7ee793a62fa8 ("cma: Remove potential deadlock situation") has introduced
> > > > the lock and there was a simple bitmat protection back then. I suspect
> > > > the patch just followed the cma_mutex lead and used the same type of the
> > > > lock. cma_mutex used to protect alloc_contig_range which is sleepable.
> > > > 
> > > > This all suggests that there is no real reason to use a sleepable lock
> > > > at all and we do not need all this heavy lifting.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > When Roman first proposed these patches, I brought up the same issue:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20201022023352.GC300658@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com/
> > > 
> > > Previously, Roman proposed replacing the mutex with a spinlock but
> > > Joonsoo was opposed.
> > > 
> > > Adding Joonsoo on Cc:
> > > 
> > 
> > There has to be a good reason not to. And if there is a good reason,
> > lockless clearing might be one feasible alternative.
> 
> I also don't think nowait variant is good idea. If the scanning of
> bitmap is *really* significant, it might be signal that we need to
> introduce different technique or data structure not bitmap rather
> than a new API variant.

I'd also prefer to just replace the mutex with a spinlock rather than fiddling
with a delayed release.

Thanks!