linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] madvise:madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(): allow split while folio_estimated

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]

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:21:52 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
 Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Kefeng Wang
 <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
 Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] madvise:madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(): allow split
 while folio_estimated_sharers = 0

On 21.02.24 10:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 21.02.24 09:50, Barry Song wrote:
>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>>
>> The purpose is stopping splitting large folios whose mapcount are 2 or
>> above. Folios whose estimated_shares = 0 should be still perfect and
>> even better candidates than estimated_shares = 1.
>>
>> Consider a pte-mapped large folio with 16 subpages, if we unmap 1-15,
>> the current code will split folios and reclaim them while madvise goes
>> on this folio; but if we unmap subpage 0, we will keep this folio and
>> break. This is weird.
>>
>> For pmd-mapped large folios, we can still use "= 1" as the condition
>> as anyway we have the entire map for it. So this patch doesn't change
>> the condition for pmd-mapped large folios.
>> This also explains why we had been using "= 1" for both pmd-mapped and
>> pte-mapped large folios before commit 07e8c82b5eff ("madvise: convert
>> madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() to use folios"), because in the
>> past, we used the mapcount of the specific subpage, since the subpage
>> had pte present, its mapcount wouldn't be 0.
>>
>> The problem can be quite easily reproduced by writing a small program,
>> unmapping the first subpage of a pte-mapped large folio vs. unmapping
>> anyone other than the first subpage.
>>
>> Fixes: 2f406263e3e9 ("madvise:madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(): don't use mapcount() against large folio for sharing check")
>> Cc: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
>> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Vishal Moola (Oracle) <vishal.moola@...il.com>
>> Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>> ---
>>    mm/madvise.c | 2 +-
>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
>> index cfa5e7288261..abde3edb04f0 100644
>> --- a/mm/madvise.c
>> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
>> @@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>    		if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>    			int err;
>>    
>> -			if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
>> +			if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
>>    				break;
>>    			if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>>    				break;
> 
> That's also what I do in
> 
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231124132626.235350-4-david@redhat.com
> 
> I'll revive that soon.

Forgot to add: we can pull this in early.

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>

(I'll do the simple folio_estimated_sharers() to folio_mapped_shared() 
conversion first and optimize with total mapcount separately)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb