linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Reduce NUMA balance caused TLB-shootdowns in a VM

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: <ZNXFhzwWIGAI8KP2@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 13:22:15 +0800
From:   Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To:     Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, <apopple@...dia.com>, <jgg@...dia.com>,
        <rppt@...nel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <kevin.tian@...el.com>, <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Reduce NUMA balance caused TLB-shootdowns in
 a VM

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 09:58:43PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:56:36PM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> >This is an RFC series trying to fix the issue of unnecessary NUMA
> >protection and TLB-shootdowns found in VMs with assigned devices or VFIO
> >mediated devices during NUMA balance.
> >
> >For VMs with assigned devices or VFIO mediated devices, all or part of
> >guest memory are pinned for long-term.
> >
> >Auto NUMA balancing will periodically selects VMAs of a process and change
> >protections to PROT_NONE even though some or all pages in the selected
> >ranges are long-term pinned for DMAs, which is true for VMs with assigned
> >devices or VFIO mediated devices.
> >
> >Though this will not cause real problem because NUMA migration will
> >ultimately reject migration of those kind of pages and restore those
> >PROT_NONE PTEs, it causes KVM's secondary MMU to be zapped periodically
> >with equal SPTEs finally faulted back, wasting CPU cycles and generating
> >unnecessary TLB-shootdowns.
> 
> In my understanding, NUMA balancing also moves tasks closer to the memory
> they are accessing. Can this still work with this series applied?
> 
For pages protected with PROT_NONE in primary MMU in scanning phase, yes;
For pages not set to PROT_NONE, no.
Because looks this task_numa_migrate() is only triggered in next page
fault when PROT_NONE and accessible VMA is found.