linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Calculate pcp->high based on zone sizes and active CPUs

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:   Fri, 28 May 2021 10:49:49 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "Tang, Feng" <feng.tang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Calculate pcp->high based on zone sizes and
 active CPUs

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:08:01AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 28.05.21 11:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 28.05.21 10:55, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:36:21PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > Hi Mel,
> > > > 
> > > > Feng Tang tossed these on a "Cascade Lake" system with 96 threads and
> > > > ~512G of persistent memory and 128G of DRAM.  The PMEM is in "volatile
> > > > use" mode and being managed via the buddy just like the normal RAM.
> > > > 
> > > > The PMEM zones are big ones:
> > > > 
> > > >           present  65011712 = 248 G
> > > >           high       134595 = 525 M
> > > > 
> > > > The PMEM nodes, of course, don't have any CPUs in them.
> > > > 
> > > > With your series, the pcp->high value per-cpu is 69584 pages or about
> > > > 270MB per CPU.  Scaled up by the 96 CPU threads, that's ~26GB of
> > > > worst-case memory in the pcps per zone, or roughly 10% of the size of
> > > > the zone.
> > 
> > When I read about having such big amounts of free memory theoretically
> > stuck in PCP lists, I guess we really want to start draining the PCP in
> > alloc_contig_range(), just as we do with memory hotunplug when offlining.
> > 
> 
> Correction: we already drain the pcp, we just don't temporarily disable it,
> so a race as described in offline_pages() could apply:
> 
> "Disable pcplists so that page isolation cannot race with freeing
>  in a way that pages from isolated pageblock are left on pcplists."
> 
> Guess we'd then want to move the draining before start_isolate_page_range()
> in alloc_contig_range().
> 

Or instead of draining, validate the PFN range in alloc_contig_range
is within the same zone and if so, call zone_pcp_disable() before
start_isolate_page_range and enable after __alloc_contig_migrate_range.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs