linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] Make MAX_ORDER adjustable as a kernel boot time parameter.

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, 6 Aug 2021 18:16:41 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] Make MAX_ORDER adjustable as a kernel boot time
 parameter.

On 06.08.21 17:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/5/21 9:02 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
>> From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
> 
>> Patch 3 restores the pfn_valid_within() check when buddy allocator can merge
>> pages across memory sections. The check was removed when ARM64 gets rid of holes
>> in zones, but holes can appear in zones again after this patchset.
> 
> To me that's most unwelcome resurrection. I kinda missed it was going away and
> now I can't even rejoice? I assume the systems that will be bumping max_order
> have a lot of memory. Are they going to have many holes? What if we just
> sacrificed the memory that would have a hole and don't add it to buddy at all?

I think the old implementation was just horrible and the description we 
have here still suffers from that old crap: "but holes can appear in 
zones again". No, it's not related to holes in zones at all. We can have 
MAX_ORDER -1 pages that are partially a hole.

And to be precise, "hole" here means "there is no memmap" and not "there 
is a hole but it has a valid memmap".

But IIRC, we now have under SPARSEMEM always a complete memmap for a 
complete memory sections (when talking about system RAM, ZONE_DEVICE is 
different but we don't really care for now I think).

So instead of introducing what we had before, I think we should look 
into something that doesn't confuse each person that stumbles over it 
out there. What does pfn_valid_within() even mean in the new context? 
pfn_valid() is most probably no longer what we really want, as we're 
dealing with multiple sections that might be online or offline; in the 
old world, this was different, as a MAX_ORDER -1 page was completely 
contained in a memory section that was either online or offline.

I'd imagine something that expresses something different in the context 
of sparsemem:

"Some page orders, such as MAX_ORDER -1, might span multiple memory 
sections. Each memory section has a completely valid memmap if online. 
Memory sections might either be completely online or completely offline. 
pfn_to_online_page() might succeed on one part of a MAX_ORDER - 1 page, 
but not on another part. But it will certainly be consistent within one 
memory section."

Further, as we know that MAX_ORDER -1 and memory sections are a power of 
two, we can actually do a binary search to identify boundaries, instead 
of having to check each and every page in the range.

Is what I describe the actual reason why we introduce pfn_valid_within() 
? (and might better introduce something new, with a better fitting name?)

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb