| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <D53C41E3-E934-4577-9286-387AF3DDBE03@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:41:41 -0400
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Eric Ren <renzhengeek@...il.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/5] mm: page_isolation: check specified range for unmovable pages
On 12 Apr 2022, at 11:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.04.22 17:01, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2022, at 10:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>> On 12.04.22 16:07, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>> On 12 Apr 2022, at 9:10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06.04.22 17:18, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>> From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Enable set_migratetype_isolate() to check specified sub-range for
>>>>>> unmovable pages during isolation. Page isolation is done
>>>>>> at MAX_ORDER_NR_PAEGS granularity, but not all pages within that
>>>>>> granularity are intended to be isolated. For example,
>>>>>> alloc_contig_range(), which uses page isolation, allows ranges without
>>>>>> alignment. This commit makes unmovable page check only look for
>>>>>> interesting pages, so that page isolation can succeed for any
>>>>>> non-overlapping ranges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> - * This function checks whether pageblock includes unmovable pages or not.
>>>>>> + * This function checks whether the range [start_pfn, end_pfn) includes
>>>>>> + * unmovable pages or not. The range must fall into a single pageblock and
>>>>>> + * consequently belong to a single zone.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> * PageLRU check without isolation or lru_lock could race so that
>>>>>> * MIGRATE_MOVABLE block might include unmovable pages. And __PageMovable
>>>>>> @@ -28,12 +30,14 @@
>>>>>> * cannot get removed (e.g., via memory unplug) concurrently.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> -static struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> - int migratetype, int flags)
>>>>>> +static struct page *has_unmovable_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn,
>>>>>> + int migratetype, int flags)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> - unsigned long iter = 0;
>>>>>> - unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>>>>>> - unsigned long offset = pfn % pageblock_nr_pages;
>>>>>> + unsigned long pfn = start_pfn;
>>>>>> + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just do
>>>>>
>>>>> struct page *page = pfn_to_page(start_pfn);
>>>>> struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
>>>>>
>>>>> here. No need to lookup the zone again in the loop because, as you
>>>>> document "must ... belong to a single zone.".
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, there is also no need to initialize "pfn" here. In the loop header
>>>>> is sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure.
>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + VM_BUG_ON(ALIGN_DOWN(start_pfn, pageblock_nr_pages) !=
>>>>>> + ALIGN_DOWN(end_pfn - 1, pageblock_nr_pages));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (is_migrate_cma_page(page)) {
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> @@ -47,8 +51,11 @@ static struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> return page;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - for (; iter < pageblock_nr_pages - offset; iter++) {
>>>>>> - page = pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
>>>>>> + for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) {
>>>>>> + struct zone *zone;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>>>>> + zone = page_zone(page);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * Both, bootmem allocations and memory holes are marked
>>>>>> @@ -85,7 +92,7 @@ static struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> skip_pages = compound_nr(head) - (page - head);
>>>>>> - iter += skip_pages - 1;
>>>>>> + pfn += skip_pages - 1;
>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -97,7 +104,7 @@ static struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> if (!page_ref_count(page)) {
>>>>>> if (PageBuddy(page))
>>>>>> - iter += (1 << buddy_order(page)) - 1;
>>>>>> + pfn += (1 << buddy_order(page)) - 1;
>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -134,11 +141,18 @@ static struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_flags)
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * This function set pageblock migratetype to isolate if no unmovable page is
>>>>>> + * present in [start_pfn, end_pfn). The pageblock must intersect with
>>>>>> + * [start_pfn, end_pfn).
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_flags,
>>>>>> + unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we might be able do better, eventually not passing start_pfn at
>>>>> all. Hmm.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, having start_pfn and end_pfn in the parameter list would make the
>>>> interface easier to understand. Otherwise if we remove start_pfn,
>>>> the caller needs to adjust @page to be within the range of [start_pfn,
>>>> end_pfn)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we want to pull out the
>>>>> start_isolate_page_range()/undo_isolate_page_range() interface change
>>>>> into a separate patch.
>>>>
>>>> You mean a patch just adding
>>>>
>>>> unsigned long isolate_start = pfn_max_align_down(start_pfn);
>>>> unsigned long isolate_end = pfn_max_align_up(end_pfn);
>>>>
>>>> in start_isolate_page_range()/undo_isolate_page_range()?
>>>>
>>>> Yes I can do that.
>>>
>>> I think we have to be careful with memory onlining/offlining. There are
>>> corner cases where we get called with only pageblock alignment and
>>> must not adjust the range.
>>
>> In the patch below, you added a new set of start_isolate_pageblocks()
>> and undo_isolate_pageblocks(), where start_isolate_pageblocks() still
>> calls set_migratetype_isolate() and noted their range should not be
>> adjusted. But in my patch, set_migratetype_isolate() adjusts
>> the range for has_unmovable_pages() check. Do you mean
>
> Right, that's broken in your patch. Memory onlining/offlining behavior
> changed recently when "vmemmap on memory" was added. The start range
> might only be aligned to pageblocks but not MAX_ORDER -1 -- and we must
> not align u..
>
> The core thing is that there are two types of users: memory offlining
> that knows what it's doing when it aligns to less then MAX_ORDER -1 ,
> and range allocators, that just pass in the range of interest.
Oh, you mean the pfn_max_align_down() and pfn_max_align_up() are wrong
for memory onlining/offlining callers. Got it. And in patch 3, this is
not a concern any more, since we move to pageblock_nr_pages alignment.
>
>> start_isolate_pageblocks() should call a different version of
>> set_migratetype_isolate() without range adjustment? That can be done
>> with an additional parameter in start_isolate_page_range(), like
>> bool strict, right?
>
> Random boolean flags are in general frowned upon ;)
I misunderstood about the alignment issue. No need for this additional
parameter.
Thanks. Will take your patch and adjust this one based on yours.
I will wait for your reviews on patch 3 and onwards before sending
out a new version.
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (855 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists