linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Use pageblock_order for cma and alloc_contig

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: <35A20739-152A-450E-8535-2236D2B28748@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:08:57 -0500
From:   Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Use pageblock_order for cma and alloc_contig_range alignment.

On 23 Nov 2021, at 12:32, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 11/23/21 17:35, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 19 Nov 2021, at 10:15, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>> From what my understanding, cma required alignment of
>>>>> max(MAX_ORDER - 1, pageblock_order), because when MIGRATE_CMA was introduced,
>>>>> __free_one_page() does not prevent merging two different pageblocks, when
>>>>> MAX_ORDER - 1 > pageblock_order. But current __free_one_page() implementation
>>>>> does prevent that.
>>>>
>>>> But it does prevent that only for isolated pageblock, not CMA, and yout
>>>> patchset doesn't seem to expand that to CMA? Or am I missing something.
>>>
>>> Yeah, you are right. Originally, I thought preventing merging isolated pageblock
>>> with other types of pageblocks is sufficient, since MIGRATE_CMA is always
>>> converted from MIGRATE_ISOLATE. But that is not true. I will rework the code.
>>> Thanks for pointing this out.
>>>
>>
>> I find that two pageblocks with different migratetypes, like MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE
>> and MIGRATE_MOVABLE can be merged into a single free page after I checked
>> __free_one_page() in detail and printed pageblock information during buddy page
>> merging.
>
> Yes, that can happen.
>
> I am not sure what consequence it will cause. Do you have any idea?
>
> For MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE or MIGRATE_MOVABLE or even MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE it's
> absolutely fine. As long as these pageblocks are fully free (and they are if
> it's a single free page spanning 2 pageblocks), they can be of any of these
> type, as they can be reused as needed without causing fragmentation.
>
> But in case of MIGRATE_CMA and MIGRATE_ISOLATE, uncontrolled merging would
> break the specifics of those types. That's why the code is careful for
> MIGRATE_ISOLATE, and MIGRATE_CMA was until now done in MAX_ORDER granularity.

Thanks for the explanation. Basically migratetypes that can fall back to each
other can be merged into a single free page, right?

How about MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC? It should not be merged with other migratetypes
from my understanding.


--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (855 bytes)