| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 11:46:09 +0530
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> This will only have an impact if the user specifies
>> MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING. This means that the user is explicitly requesting
>> for frequently accessed memory pages to be migrated. Memory policy
>> MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY is able to allocate pages from nodes outside of
>> policy->nodes. For the specific use case that I am interested in, it
>> should be okay to restrict it to policy->nodes. However, I am wondering
>> if this is too restrictive given the definition of MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY.
>
> IMHO, we can start with some consecutive way and expand it if it's
> proved necessary.
>
Is this good?
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
mm/mempolicy.c | 48 ++++++++++++++----------------------------------
modified mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -2464,23 +2464,6 @@ 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;
-}
-
/**
* mpol_misplaced - check whether current folio node is valid in policy
*
@@ -2533,29 +2516,26 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct folio *folio, struct vm_fault *vmf,
break;
case MPOL_BIND:
- /* Optimize placement among multiple nodes via NUMA balancing */
+ case MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY:
+ /*
+ * Even though MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY can allocate pages outside
+ * policy nodemask we don't allow numa migration to nodes
+ * outside policy nodemask for now. This is done so that if we
+ * want demotion to slow memory to happen, before allocating
+ * from some DRAM node say 'x', we will end up using a
+ * MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY mask excluding node 'x'. In such scenario
+ * we should not promote to node 'x' from slow memory node.
+ */
if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_MORON) {
+ /*
+ * Optimize placement among multiple nodes
+ * via NUMA balancing
+ */
if (node_isset(thisnid, pol->nodes))
break;
goto out;
}
- if (node_isset(curnid, pol->nodes))
- goto out;
- z = first_zones_zonelist(
- node_zonelist(thisnid, GFP_HIGHUSER),
- gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER),
- &pol->nodes);
- polnid = zone_to_nid(z->zone);
- 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.
[back]
.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists