linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: hold PTL from the first PTE while reclaiming a large folio

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: <e5e14ef9-1bd2-45a8-818d-e92910e97f8f@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 08:54:41 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, david@...hat.com,
 chrisl@...nel.org, yuzhao@...gle.com, hanchuanhua@...o.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
 xiang@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com, shy828301@...il.com,
 wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
 Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: hold PTL from the first PTE while reclaiming a
 large folio

On 04/03/2024 21:57, Barry Song wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:21 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Barry,
>>
>> On 04/03/2024 10:37, Barry Song wrote:
>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>>>
>>> page_vma_mapped_walk() within try_to_unmap_one() races with other
>>> PTEs modification such as break-before-make, while iterating PTEs
>>> of a large folio, it will only begin to acquire PTL after it gets
>>> a valid(present) PTE. break-before-make intermediately sets PTEs
>>> to pte_none. Thus, a large folio's PTEs might be partially skipped
>>> in try_to_unmap_one().
>>
>> I just want to check my understanding here - I think the problem occurs for
>> PTE-mapped, PMD-sized folios as well as smaller-than-PMD-size large folios? Now
>> that I've had a look at the code and have a better understanding, I think that
>> must be the case? And therefore this problem exists independently of my work to
>> support swap-out of mTHP? (From your previous report I was under the impression
>> that it only affected mTHP).
> 
> I think this affects all large folios with PTEs entries more than 1. but hugeTLB
> is handled as a whole in try_to_unmap_one and its rmap is removed all
> together, i feel hugeTLB doesn't have this problem.
> 
>>
>> Its just that the problem is becoming more pronounced because with mTHP,
>> PTE-mapped large folios are much more common?
> 
> right. as now large folios become a more common case, and it is my case
> running in millions of phones.
> 
> BTW, I feel we can somehow learn from hugeTLB, for example, we can reclaim
> all PTEs all together rather than iterating PTEs one by one. This will improve
> performance. for example, a batched
> set_ptes_to_swap_entries()
> {
> }
> then we only need to loop once for a large folio, right now we are looping
> nr_pages times.

You still need a pte-pte loop somewhere. In hugetlb's case it's in the arch
implementation. HugeTLB ptes are all a fixed size for a given VMA, which makes
things a bit easier too, whereas in the regular mm, they are now a variable size.

David and I introduced folio_pte_batch() to help gather batches of ptes, and it
uses the contpte bit to avoid iterating over intermediate ptes. And I'm adding
swap_pte_batch() which does a similar thing for swap entry batching in v4 of my
swap-out series.

For your set_ptes_to_swap_entries() example, I'm not sure what it would do other
than loop over the PTEs setting an incremented swap entry to each one? How is
that more performant?

Thanks,
Ryan