| 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: <CAK1f24k2G_DSEjuqqqPyY0f7+btpYbjfoyMH7btLfP8nkasCTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:00:28 +0800
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, zokeefe@...gle.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
shy828301@...il.com, david@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com,
xiehuan09@...il.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, songmuchun@...edance.com,
peterx@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/madvise: enhance lazyfreeing with mTHP in madvise_free
Hey Barry,
Thanks for taking time to review!
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:00 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 7:15 PM Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com> wrote:
> >
[...]
> > +static inline bool can_mark_large_folio_lazyfree(unsigned long addr,
> > + struct folio *folio, pte_t *start_pte)
> > +{
> > + int nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > + fpb_t flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> > +
> > + for (int i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++)
> > + if (page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, i)) != 1)
> > + return false;
>
> we have moved to folio_estimated_sharers though it is not precise, so
> we don't do
> this check with lots of loops and depending on the subpage's mapcount.
If we don't check the subpage’s mapcount, and there is a cow folio associated
with this folio and the cow folio has smaller size than this folio,
should we still
mark this folio as lazyfree?
> BTW, do we need to rebase our work against David's changes[1]?
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240227201548.857831-1-david@redhatcom/
Yes, we should rebase our work against David’s changes.
>
> > +
> > + return nr_pages == folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, start_pte,
> > + ptep_get(start_pte), nr_pages, flags, NULL);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
> >
> > @@ -676,11 +690,45 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > */
> > if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> > int err;
> > + unsigned long next_addr, align;
> >
> > - if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
> > - break;
> > - if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> > - break;
> > + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1 ||
> > + !folio_trylock(folio))
> > + goto skip_large_folio;
>
>
> I don't think we can skip all the PTEs for nr_pages, as some of them might be
> pointing to other folios.
>
> for example, for a large folio with 16PTEs, you do MADV_DONTNEED(15-16),
> and write the memory of PTE15 and PTE16, you get page faults, thus PTE15
> and PTE16 will point to two different small folios. We can only skip when we
> are sure nr_pages == folio_pte_batch() is sure.
Agreed. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> > +
> > + align = folio_nr_pages(folio) * PAGE_SIZE;
> > + next_addr = ALIGN_DOWN(addr + align, align);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we mark only the subpages as lazyfree, or
> > + * cannot mark the entire large folio as lazyfree,
> > + * then just split it.
> > + */
> > + if (next_addr > end || next_addr - addr != align ||
> > + !can_mark_large_folio_lazyfree(addr, folio, pte))
> > + goto split_large_folio;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Avoid unnecessary folio splitting if the large
> > + * folio is entirely within the given range.
> > + */
> > + folio_clear_dirty(folio);
> > + folio_unlock(folio);
> > + for (; addr != next_addr; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > + ptent = ptep_get(pte);
> > + if (pte_young(ptent) || pte_dirty(ptent)) {
> > + ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(
> > + mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
> > + ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
> > + ptent = pte_mkclean(ptent);
> > + set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> > + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> > + }
>
> Can we do this in batches? for a CONT-PTE mapped large folio, you are unfolding
> and folding again. It seems quite expensive.
Thanks for your suggestion. I'll do this in batches in v3.
Thanks again for your time!
Best,
Lance
>
> > + }
> > + folio_mark_lazyfree(folio);
> > + goto next_folio;
> > +
> > +split_large_folio:
> > folio_get(folio);
> > arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> > pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
> > @@ -688,13 +736,28 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > err = split_folio(folio);
> > folio_unlock(folio);
> > folio_put(folio);
> > - if (err)
> > - break;
> > - start_pte = pte =
> > - pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> > - if (!start_pte)
> > - break;
> > - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the large folio is locked or cannot be split,
> > + * we just skip it.
> > + */
> > + if (err) {
> > +skip_large_folio:
> > + if (next_addr >= end)
> > + break;
> > + pte += (next_addr - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;
> > + addr = next_addr;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!start_pte) {
> > + start_pte = pte = pte_offset_map_lock(
> > + mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> > + if (!start_pte)
> > + break;
> > + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> > + }
> > +
> > +next_folio:
> > pte--;
> > addr -= PAGE_SIZE;
> > continue;
> > --
> > 2.33.1
> >
>
> Thanks
> Barry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists