linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] mm: multigenerational lru: mm

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:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 16:21:53 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        page-reclaim@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org,
        Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] mm: multigenerational lru: mm_struct list

On Fri 07-01-22 17:19:28, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 10:06:15AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 04-01-22 13:22:24, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > To exploit spatial locality, the aging prefers to walk page tables to
> > > search for young PTEs. And this patch paves the way for that.
> > > 
> > > An mm_struct list is maintained for each memcg, and an mm_struct
> > > follows its owner task to the new memcg when this task is migrated.
> > 
> > How does this work actually for the memcg reclaim? I can see you
> > lru_gen_migrate_mm on the task migration. My concern is, though, that
> > such a task leaves all the memory behind in the previous memcg (in
> > cgroup v2, in v1 you can opt in for charge migration). If you move the
> > mm to a new memcg then you age it somewhere where the memory is not
> > really consumed.
> 
> There are two options to gather the accessed bit: page table walks and
> rmap walks. Page table walks sweep dense hotspots that are NOT
> misplaced in terms of reclaim scope (lruvec); rmap walks cover what
> page table walks miss, e.g., misplaced dense hotspots or sparse ones.
> 
> Dense hotspots are stored in Bloom filters for each lruvec.
> 
> If an mm leaves everything in the old memcg, page table walks in the
> new memcg reclaim path basically ignore this mm after the first scan,
> because everything is misplaced.

OK, so do I get it right that pages mapped from a different memcg than
the reclaimed one are considered effectivelly non-present from the the
reclaim logic POV? This would be worth mentioning in the migration
callback because it is not really that straightforward to put those two
together.
 
> In the old memcg reclaim path, page table walks won't see this mm
> at all. But rmap walks will catch everything later in the eviction
> path, i.e., lru_gen_look_around(). This function is less efficient
> compared with page table walks because, for each rmap walk of a
> non-shared page, it only can gather the accessed bit from 64 PTEs at
> most. But it's still a lot faster than the original rmap, which only
> gathers the accessed bit from a single PTE, for each walk of a
> non-shared page.

Again, something that should be really documented.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs