| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZSST8Kc6duUWt6a9igrsn=ucUPSVPWWGDWEUxBs3b4bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:55:34 -0700
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
Cc: "minchan@...nel.org" <minchan@...nel.org>,
"senozhatsky@...omium.org" <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"djwong@...nel.org" <djwong@...nel.org>,
"willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
"hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"gost.dev@...sung.com" <gost.dev@...sung.com>,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] shmem: add large folios support to the write path
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 1:00 AM Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:26:37AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 2:51 AM Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add large folio support for shmem write path matching the same high
> > > order preference mechanism used for iomap buffered IO path as used in
> > > __filemap_get_folio().
> > >
> > > Use the __folio_get_max_order to get a hint for the order of the folio
> > > based on file size which takes care of the mapping requirements.
> > >
> > > Swap does not support high order folios for now, so make it order 0 in
> > > case swap is enabled.
> >
> > I didn't take a close look at the series, but I am not sure I
> > understand the rationale here. Reclaim will split high order shmem
> > folios anyway, right?
>
> For context, this is part of the enablement of large block sizes (LBS)
> effort [1][2][3], so the assumption here is that the kernel will
> reclaim memory with the same (large) block sizes that were written to
> the device.
>
> I'll add more context in the V2.
>
> [1] https://kernelnewbies.org/KernelProjects/large-block-size
> [2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS7sQfw90S00l2rfOKm83Jlg0px8KxMQE4HHp_DKRGbAGcAV-xu6LITHBEc4xzVh9wLH6WM2lR0cZS8/pubhtml#
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZQfbHloBUpDh+zCg@dread.disaster.area/
> >
> > It seems like we only enable high order folios if the "noswap" mount
> > option is used, which is fairly recent. I doubt it is widely used.
>
> For now, I skipped the swap path as it currently lacks support for
> high order folios. But I'm currently looking into it as part of the LBS
> effort (please check spreadsheet at [2] for that).
Thanks for the context, but I am not sure I understand.
IIUC we are skipping allocating large folios in shmem if swap is
enabled in this patch. Swap does not support swapping out large folios
as a whole (except THPs), but page reclaim will split those large
folios and swap them out as order-0 pages anyway. So I am not sure I
understand why we need to skip allocating large folios if swap is
enabled.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/shmem.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> > > index adff74751065..26ca555b1669 100644
> > > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> > > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> > > @@ -1683,13 +1683,19 @@ static struct folio *shmem_alloc_folio(gfp_t gfp,
> > > }
> > >
> > > static struct folio *shmem_alloc_and_acct_folio(gfp_t gfp, struct inode *inode,
> > > - pgoff_t index, bool huge, unsigned int *order)
> > > + pgoff_t index, bool huge, unsigned int *order,
> > > + struct shmem_sb_info *sbinfo)
> > > {
> > > struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> > > struct folio *folio;
> > > int nr;
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > + if (!sbinfo->noswap)
> > > + *order = 0;
> > > + else
> > > + *order = (*order == 1) ? 0 : *order;
> > > +
> > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE))
> > > huge = false;
> > > nr = huge ? HPAGE_PMD_NR : 1U << *order;
> > > @@ -2032,6 +2038,8 @@ static int shmem_get_folio_gfp(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + order = mapping_size_order(inode->i_mapping, index, len);
> > > +
> > > if (!shmem_is_huge(inode, index, false,
> > > vma ? vma->vm_mm : NULL, vma ? vma->vm_flags : 0))
> > > goto alloc_nohuge;
> > > @@ -2039,11 +2047,11 @@ static int shmem_get_folio_gfp(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> > > huge_gfp = vma_thp_gfp_mask(vma);
> > > huge_gfp = limit_gfp_mask(huge_gfp, gfp);
> > > folio = shmem_alloc_and_acct_folio(huge_gfp, inode, index, true,
> > > - &order);
> > > + &order, sbinfo);
> > > if (IS_ERR(folio)) {
> > > alloc_nohuge:
> > > folio = shmem_alloc_and_acct_folio(gfp, inode, index, false,
> > > - &order);
> > > + &order, sbinfo);
> > > }
> > > if (IS_ERR(folio)) {
> > > int retry = 5;
> > > @@ -2147,6 +2155,8 @@ static int shmem_get_folio_gfp(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> > > if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> > > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > folio_put(folio);
> > > + if (order > 0)
> > > + order--;
> > > goto alloc_nohuge;
> > > }
> > > unlock:
> > > --
> > > 2.39.2
> > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists