linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Introduce new MADV

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: <470dc638-a300-f261-94b4-e27250e42f96@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:17:45 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, jingshan@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Introduce new MADV_NOMOVABLE behavior

> I observed one migration failure case (which is not easy to reproduce)
> is that, the 'thp_migration_fail' count is 1 and the
> 'thp_split_page_failed' count is also 1.
> 
> That means when migrating a THP which is in CMA area, but can not
> allocate a new THP due to memory fragmentation, so it will split the
> THP. However THP split is also failed, probably the reason is temporary
> reference count of this THP. And the temporary reference count can be
> caused by dropping page caches (I observed the drop caches operation in
> the system), but we can not drop the shmem page caches due to they are
> already dirty at that time.
> 
> So we can try again in migrate_pages() if THP split is failed to
> mitigate the failure of migration, especially for the failure reason is
> temporary reference count? Does this sound reasonable for you?

It sound reasonable, and I understand that debugging these issues is 
tricky. But we really have to figure out the root cause to make these 
pages that are indeed movable (but only temporarily not movable for 
reason XYZ) movable.

We'd need some indication to retry migration longer / again.

> 
> However I still worried there are other possible cases to cause
> migration failure, so no CMA allocation for our case seems more stable IMO.

Yes, I can understand that. But as one example, you're approach doesn't 
handle the case that a page that was allocated on !CMA/!ZONE_MOVABLE 
would get migrated to CMA/ZONE_MOVABLE just before you would try pinning 
the page (to migrate it again off CMA/ZONE_MOVABLE).

We really have to fix the root cause.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb