[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a77f387-9400-3b41-d89f-2f1ef7bfbdc4@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 17:54:06 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@...cinc.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
sjpark@...zon.de, sieberf@...zon.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
minchan@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
"iamjoonsoo.kim@....com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix use-after free of page_ext after race with
memory-offline
On 19.07.22 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 19-07-22 20:42:42, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
>> Thanks Michal!!
>>
>> On 7/18/2022 8:24 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_ext.c b/mm/page_ext.c
>>>>>> index 3dc715d..5ccd3ee 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/page_ext.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/page_ext.c
>>>>>> @@ -299,8 +299,9 @@ static void __free_page_ext(unsigned long pfn)
>>>>>> if (!ms || !ms->page_ext)
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>> base = get_entry(ms->page_ext, pfn);
>>>>>> - free_page_ext(base);
>>>>>> ms->page_ext = NULL;
>>>>>> + synchronize_rcu();
>>>>>> + free_page_ext(base);
>>>>>> }
>>>>> So you are imposing the RCU grace period for each page_ext! This can get
>>>>> really expensive. Have you tried to measure the effect?
>>> I was wrong here! This is for each memory section which is not as
>>> terrible as every single page_ext. This can be still quite a lot memory
>>> sections in a single memory block (e.g. on ppc memory sections are
>>> ridiculously small).
>>>
>>
>> On the ARM64, I see that the minimum a section size will go is 128MB. I
>> think 16MB is the section size on ppc. Any inputs on how frequently
>> offline/online operation is being done on this ppc arch?
>
> I have seen several reports where 16MB sections were used on PPC LPARs
> with a non trivial size. My usual answer to that is tha this is mostly a
> self inflicted injury but I am told that for some reasons I cannot
> udnerstand this is not easy to change. So reasonable or not this is not
> all that uncommon in PPC land.
>
> We definitely shouldn't optimize for those setups but we shouldn't make
> them suffer even more as well. Besides that it seems that a single
> rcu_synchronize per offline operation should be doable.
IIRC, any reasonable PPC64 installation uses LMB >= 256 MiB, which maps
to the logical memory block size, and we only online/offline complete
memory blocks, not individual memory sections.
So one these installations, you'll see memory getting onlined/offlined
in at least 256MiB granularity.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists