linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] variable-order, large folios for anonymous memory

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: <83bb1b99-81d3-0f32-4bf2-032cb512a1a1@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:59:33 +0100
From:   Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] variable-order, large folios for anonymous memory

On 14/07/2023 17:04, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This is v3 of a series to implement variable order, large folios for anonymous
> memory. (currently called "FLEXIBLE_THP") The objective of this is to improve
> performance by allocating larger chunks of memory during anonymous page faults.
> See [1] and [2] for background.

A question for anyone that can help; I'm preparing v4 and as part of that am
running the mm selftests, now that I've fixed them  up to run reliably for
arm64. This is showing 2 regressions vs the v6.5-rc3 baseline:

1) khugepaged test fails here:
# Run test: collapse_max_ptes_none (khugepaged:anon)
# Maybe collapse with max_ptes_none exceeded.... Fail
# Unexpected huge page

2) split_huge_page_test fails with:
# Still AnonHugePages not split

I *think* (but haven't yet verified) that (1) is due to khugepaged ignoring
non-order-0 folios when looking for candidates to collapse. Now that we have
large anon folios, the memory allocated by the test is in large folios and
therefore does not get collapsed. We understand this issue, and I believe
DavidH's new scheme for determining exclusive vs shared should give us the tools
to solve this.

But (2) is weird. If I run this test on its own immediately after booting, it
passes. If I then run the khugepaged test, then re-run this test, it fails.

The test is allocating 4 hugepages, then requesting they are split using the
debugfs interface. Then the test looks at /proc/self/smaps to check that
AnonHugePages is back to 0.

In both the passing and failing cases, the kernel thinks that it has
successfully split the pages; the debug logs in split_huge_pages_pid() confirm
this. In the failing case, I wonder if somehow khugepaged could be immediately
re-collapsing the pages before user sapce can observe the split? Perhaps the
failed khugepaged test has left khugepaged in an "awake" state and it
immediately pounces?

Thanks,
Ryan