linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 07/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: exploit locality in rmap

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:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:46:29 +1200
From:   Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.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>,
        Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.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>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@...gle.com>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
        Jan Alexander Steffens <heftig@...hlinux.org>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Steven Barrett <steven@...uorix.net>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Byrne <djbyrne@....edu>,
        Donald Carr <d@...os-reins.com>,
        Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
        Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@...dex.ru>,
        Shuang Zhai <szhai2@...rochester.edu>,
        Sofia Trinh <sofia.trinh@....works>,
        Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: exploit locality in rmap

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:04 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:29 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 3:48 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Searching the rmap for PTEs mapping each page on an LRU list (to test
> > > and clear the accessed bit) can be expensive because pages from
> > > different VMAs (PA space) are not cache friendly to the rmap (VA
> > > space). For workloads mostly using mapped pages, the rmap has a high
> > > CPU cost in the reclaim path.
> > >
> > > This patch exploits spatial locality to reduce the trips into the
> > > rmap. When shrink_page_list() walks the rmap and finds a young PTE, a
> > > new function lru_gen_look_around() scans at most BITS_PER_LONG-1
> > > adjacent PTEs. On finding another young PTE, it clears the accessed
> > > bit and updates the gen counter of the page mapped by this PTE to
> > > (max_seq%MAX_NR_GENS)+1.
> >
> > Hi Yu,
> > It seems an interesting feature to save the cost of rmap. but will it lead to
> > possible judging of cold pages as hot pages?
> > In case a page is mapped by 20 processes,  and it has been accessed
> > by 5 of them, when we look around one of the 5 processes, the page
> > will be young and this pte is cleared. but we still have 4 ptes which are not
> > cleared. then we don't access the page for a long time, but the 4 uncleared
> > PTEs will still make the page "hot" since they are not cleared, we will find
> > the page is hot either due to look-arounding the 4 processes or rmapping
> > the page later?
>
> Why are the remaining 4 accessed PTEs skipped? The rmap should check
> all the 20 PTEs.

for example page A is the neighbour of page B in process 1, when we do rmap
for B, we look-around and clear A's pte in process 1. but A's ptes are
still set in
process 2,3,4,5.

>
> Even if they were skipped, it doesn't matter. The same argument could
> be made for the rest of 1 millions minus 1 pages that have been timely
> scanned, on a 4GB laptop. The fundamental principle (assumption) of
> MGLRU is never about making the best choices. Nothing can because it's
> impossible to predict the future that well, given the complexity of
> today's workloads, not on a phone, definitely not on a server that
> runs mixed types of workloads. The primary goal is to avoid the worst
> choices at a minimum (scanning) cost. The second goal is to pick good
> ones at an acceptable cost, which probably are a half of all possible
> choices.

thanks
barry