linux-kernel - Re: [QUESTION] about the maple tree and current status of mmap

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: <Y/OHC33YLedMXTlD@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2023 14:43:23 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, surenb@...gle.com,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, michel@...pinasse.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] about the maple tree and current status of mmap_lock
 scalability

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 02:26:49PM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 02:37:02PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 09:04:12PM +0900, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > > > https://www.infradead.org/~willy/linux/store-free-page-faults.html
> > > > outlines how I intend to proceed from Suren's current scheme (where
> > > > RCU is only used to protect the tree walk) to using RCU for the
> > > > entire page fault.
> > > 
> > > Thank you for sharing this your outlines.
> > > Okay, so the planned scheme is:
> > > 
> > > 	1. Try to process entire page fault under RCU protection
> > > 		- if failed, goto 2. if succeeded, goto 4.
> > > 
> > > 	2. Fall back to Suren's scheme (try to take VMA rwsem)
> > > 		- if failed, goto 3. if succeeded, goto 4.
> > 
> > Right.  The question is whether to restart the page fault under Suren's
> > scheme, or just grab the VMA rwsem and continue.  Experimentation
> > needed.
> > 
> > It's also worth noting that Michel has an alternative proposal, which
> > is to drop out of RCU protection before trying to allocate memory, then
> > re-enter RCU mode and check the sequence count hasn't changed on the
> > entire MM.  His proposal has the advantage of not trying to allocate
> > memory while holding the RCU read lock, but the disadvantage of having
> > to retry the page fault if anyone has called mmap() or munmap().  Which
> > alternative is better is going to depend on the workload; do we see more
> > calls to mmap()/munmap(), or do we need to enter page reclaim more often?
> > I think they're largely equivalent performance-wise in the fast path.
> > Another metric to consider is code complexity; he thinks his method
> > is easier to understand and I think mine is easier.  To be expected,
> > I suppose ;-)
> 
> I'm planning to suggest a cooperative project to my colleagues
> that would involve making __p?d_alloc() take gfp flags.
> 
> Wondering if there was any progress or conclusion made on which
> approach is better for full RCU page faults, or was there another
> solution proposed?
> 
> Asking this because I don't want to waste my time if the approach
> has been abandoned.

Thanks for checking, but nobody's made any progress on this, that I know
of.

(The __p?d_alloc() approach may also be useful to support vmalloc()
with flags that aren't GFP_KERNEL compatible)