[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230406182749.GA405948@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 20:27:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@...hat.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
davem@...emloft.net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, will@...nel.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, keescook@...omium.org,
paulmck@...nel.org, jpoimboe@...nel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
ardb@...nel.org, juerg.haefliger@...onical.com,
rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, geert+renesas@...der.be,
tony@...mide.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
sebastian.reichel@...labora.com, nick.hawkins@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, vschneid@...hat.com, dhildenb@...hat.com,
alougovs@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmu_gather: send tlb_remove_table_smp_sync IPI
only to CPUs in kernel mode
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:51:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.04.23 17:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > DavidH, what do you thikn about reviving Jann's patches here:
> >
> > https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=2365#c1
> >
> > Those are far more invasive, but afaict they seem to do the right thing.
> >
>
> I recall seeing those while discussed on security@...nel.org. What we
> currently have was (IMHO for good reasons) deemed better to fix the issue,
> especially when caring about backports and getting it right.
Yes, and I think that was the right call. However, we can now revisit
without having the pressure of a known defect and backport
considerations.
> The alternative that was discussed in that context IIRC was to simply
> allocate a fresh page table, place the fresh page table into the list
> instead, and simply free the old page table (then using common machinery).
>
> TBH, I'd wish (and recently raised) that we could just stop wasting memory
> on page tables for THPs that are maybe never going to get PTE-mapped ... and
> eventually just allocate on demand (with some caching?) and handle the
> places where we're OOM and cannot PTE-map a THP in some descend way.
>
> ... instead of trying to figure out how to deal with these page tables we
> cannot free but have to special-case simply because of GUP-fast.
Not keeping them around sounds good to me, but I'm not *that* familiar
with the THP code, most of that happened after I stopped tracking mm. So
I'm not sure how feasible is it.
But it does look entirely feasible to rework this page-table freeing
along the lines Jann did.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists