linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 4/4] mm: hugetlb_vmemmap: add hugetlb_optimize

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: <c77c61c8-8a5a-87e8-db89-d04d8aaab4cc@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 10:53:07 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc:     corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, yzaikin@...gle.com, osalvador@...e.de,
        david@...hat.com, masahiroy@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        duanxiongchun@...edance.com, smuchun@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/4] mm: hugetlb_vmemmap: add hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap
 sysctl

On 5/11/22 03:57, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:45:57PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 05:39:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 5/10/22 14:30, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/22 23:27, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h b/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
>>>>> index 029fb7e26504..917112661b5c 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
>>>>> @@ -351,4 +351,13 @@ void arch_remove_linear_mapping(u64 start, u64 size);
>>>>>  extern bool mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(unsigned long size);
>>>>>  #endif /* CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG */
>>>>>  
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY
>>>>> +bool mhp_memmap_on_memory(void);
>>>>> +#else
>>>>> +static inline bool mhp_memmap_on_memory(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	return false;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>>  #endif /* __LINUX_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_H */
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>> index 8605d7eb7f5c..86158eb9da70 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>> @@ -1617,6 +1617,9 @@ static DECLARE_WORK(free_hpage_work, free_hpage_workfn);
>>>>>  
>>>>>  static inline void flush_free_hpage_work(struct hstate *h)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> +	if (!hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled())
>>>>> +		return;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Hi Muchun,
>>>>
>>>> In v9 I was suggesting that we may be able to eliminate the static_branch_inc/dec from the vmemmap free/alloc paths.  With this patch
>>>> I believe hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled() is really checking
>>>> 'has hugetlb vmemmap optimization been enabled' OR 'are there still vmemmap
>>>> optimized hugetlb pages in the system'.  That may be confusing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I forgot about the use of hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled in
>>> page_fixed_fake_head.  We need to know if there are any vmemmap optimized
>>> hugetlb pages in the system in this performance sensitive path.  So,
>>> static_branch_inc/dec is indeed a good idea.
>>>
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>>> Please disregard my attempt below at removing static_branch_inc/dec.
>>>
>>> I still find the name hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled a bit confusing as
>>> it tests two conditions (enabled and pages in use).
>>>
>>
>> Right. It tests two conditions.
>>
>>> You have already 'open coded' just the check for enabled in the routine
>>> hugetlb_vmemmap_free with:
>>>
>>> 	READ_ONCE(vmemmap_optimize_mode) == VMEMMAP_OPTIMIZE_OFF
>>>
>>> How about having hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled() just check
>>> vmemmap_optimize_mode in a manner like above?  Then rename
>>
>> I'm wondering is it necessary to do this? vmemmap_optimize_mode
>> is a internal state in hugetlb_vmemmap.c, at leaset now there is
>> no outside users who care about this.  Open-coding may be not
>> an issue (I guess)?  If one day someone cares it, maybe it it
>> the time to do this and rename hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled()?
>> I'm not against doing this, just expressing some of my thoughts.
>> What do you think, Mike?
>>
>>> hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled to something like:
>>> hugetlb_optimized_vmemmap_possible().  Sorry, I can think if a great name.
>>>
>>
>> At least I cannot come up with an appropriate name.
>> hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_may_enabled()? It's not easy to come
>> up with a good name.
>>
> 
> Instead of renaming, how about remove hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled()
> directly?  I found there are only two places (mm/memory_hotplug.c and
> arch/arm64/mm/flush.c) except include/linux/page-flags.h where use this
> helper.
> 
> In arch/arm64/mm/flush.c, we could replace it with
> 
>   if (PageHuge(page) && HPageVmemmapOptimized(compound_head(page)))
> 
> In mm/memory_hotplug.c, I have a plan to remove it as well (I'll
> post them out after this patch merged).
> 
> Finally, there is no outside users of it, we could remove it and squash
> it into page_fixed_fake_head(). What do you think this, Mike?

That sounds good.

Sorry for all the questions/suggestions around
hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled.  It just caused me a little confusion
as it is providing information on two conditions.  I wanted to prevent it
from causing confusion for others reading the code in the future.

This patch as written is fine with plans for a follow up to remove
hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_enabled.

Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
-- 
Mike Kravetz