linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/numa_balancing:Allow migrate on protnone reference with MPOL_PREFERRED

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: <877cizppsa.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:18:13 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  linux-mm@...ck.org,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
  Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,  Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
  Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,  Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
  Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,  Andrea Arcangeli
 <aarcange@...hat.com>,  Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,  Ingo
 Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,  Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,  Johannes
 Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,  Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,  Mike
 Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,  Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,  Dan
 Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,  Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
  Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,  Suren Baghdasaryan
 <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/numa_balancing:Allow migrate on protnone
 reference with MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY policy

Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com> writes:

> commit bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate on fault among multiple bound
> nodes") added support for migrate on protnone reference with MPOL_BIND
> memory policy. This allowed numa fault migration when the executing node
> is part of the policy mask for MPOL_BIND. This patch extends migration
> support to MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY policy.
>
> Currently, we cannot specify MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY with the mempolicy flag
> MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING. This causes issues when we want to use
> NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING. To effectively use the slow memory tier,
> the kernel should not allocate pages from the slower memory tier via
> allocation control zonelist fallback. Instead, we should move cold pages
> from the faster memory node via memory demotion. For a page allocation,
> kswapd is only woken up after we try to allocate pages from all nodes in
> the allocation zone list. This implies that, without using memory
> policies, we will end up allocating hot pages in the slower memory tier.
>
> MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY was added by commit b27abaccf8e8 ("mm/mempolicy: add
> MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes") to allow better
> allocation control when we have memory tiers in the system. With
> MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, the user can use a policy node mask consisting only
> of faster memory nodes. When we fail to allocate pages from the faster
> memory node, kswapd would be woken up, allowing demotion of cold pages
> to slower memory nodes.
>
> With the current kernel, such usage of memory policies implies we can't
> do page promotion from a slower memory tier to a faster memory tier
> using numa fault. This patch fixes this issue.
>
> For MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, if the executing node is in the policy node
> mask, we allow numa migration to the executing nodes. If the executing
> node is not in the policy node mask but the folio is already allocated
> based on policy preference (the folio node is in the policy node mask),
> we don't allow numa migration. If both the executing node and folio node
> are outside the policy node mask, we allow numa migration to the
> executing nodes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V (IBM) <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  mm/mempolicy.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 73d698e21dae..8c4c92b10371 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1458,9 +1458,10 @@ static inline int sanitize_mpol_flags(int *mode, unsigned short *flags)
>  	if ((*flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) && (*flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	if (*flags & MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING) {
> -		if (*mode != MPOL_BIND)
> +		if (*mode == MPOL_BIND || *mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY)
> +			*flags |= (MPOL_F_MOF | MPOL_F_MORON);
> +		else
>  			return -EINVAL;
> -		*flags |= (MPOL_F_MOF | MPOL_F_MORON);
>  	}
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -2463,6 +2464,23 @@ static void sp_free(struct sp_node *n)
>  	kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, n);
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool mpol_preferred_should_numa_migrate(int exec_node, int folio_node,
> +					    struct mempolicy *pol)
> +{
> +	/* if the executing node is in the policy node mask, migrate */
> +	if (node_isset(exec_node, pol->nodes))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/* If the folio node is in policy node mask, don't migrate */
> +	if (node_isset(folio_node, pol->nodes))
> +		return false;
> +	/*
> +	 * both the folio node and executing node are outside the policy nodemask,
> +	 * migrate as normal numa fault migration.
> +	 */
> +	return true;

Why?  This may cause some unexpected result.  For example, pages may be
distributed among multiple sockets unexpectedly.  So, I prefer the more
conservative policy, that is, only migrate if this node is in
pol->nodes.

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * mpol_misplaced - check whether current folio node is valid in policy
>   *
> @@ -2526,6 +2544,12 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>  		break;
>  
>  	case MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY:
> +		if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_MORON) {
> +			if (!mpol_preferred_should_numa_migrate(thisnid, curnid, pol))
> +				goto out;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * use current page if in policy nodemask,
>  		 * else select nearest allowed node, if any.