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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:54:51 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <>
To:     Mike Kravetz <>
        David Hildenbrand <>,
        Michal Hocko <>, Zi Yan <>,
        Muchun Song <>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] hugetlb: be sure to free demoted CMA pages to CMA

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:57:54AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> It is the smallest.
> CMA uses a per-region bit map to track allocations.  When setting up the
> region, you specify how many pages each bit represents.  Currently,
> only gigantic pages are allocated/freed from CMA so the region is set up
> such that one bit represents a gigantic page size allocation.
> With demote, a gigantic page (allocation) could be split into smaller
> size pages.  And, these smaller size pages will be freed to CMA.  So,
> since the per-region bit map needs to be set up to represent the smallest
> allocation/free size, it now needs to be set to the smallest huge page
> size which can be freed to CMA.
> Unfortunately, we set up the CMA region for huge pages before we set up
> huge pages sizes (hstates).  So, technically we do not know the smallest
> huge page size as this can change via command line options and
> architecture specific code.  Therefore, at region setup time we need some
> constant value for smallest possible huge page size.  That is why

Do you know if that is done for a reason? Setting up CMA for hugetlb before
initialiting hugetlb itself? Would not make more sense to do it the other way

The way I see it is that it is a bit unfortunate that we cannot only demote
gigantic pages per se, so 1GB on x86_64 and 16G on arm64 with 64k page size.

I guess nothing to be worried about now as this is an early stage, but maybe
something to think about in the future in we case we want to allow for more

> I should probably add all that to the changelog for clarity?

Yes, I think it would be great to have that as a context.

> After your comment yesterday about rewriting this code for clarity,  this
> now becomes:
> 		/*
> 		 * Set demote order for each hstate.  Note that
> 		 * h->demote_order is initially 0.
> 		 * - We can not demote gigantic pages if runtime freeing
> 		 *   is not supported, so skip this.
> 		 * - If CMA allocation is possible, we can not demote
> 		 *   HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER or smaller size pages.
> 		 */
> 		if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_runtime_supported())
> 			continue;
> 		if (hugetlb_cma_size && h->order <= HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER)
> 			continue;
> 		for_each_hstate(h2) {
> 			if (h2 == h)
> 				continue;
> 			if (h2->order < h->order &&
> 			    h2->order > h->demote_order)
> 				h->demote_order = h2->order;
> 		}
> Hopefully, that is more clear.

Defintiely, this looks better to me.

Oscar Salvador

Powered by blists - more mailing lists