| 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: <03458c20-5544-411b-9b8d-b4600a9b802f@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:07:22 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>,
david@...hat.com, Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, zokeefe@...gle.com, shy828301@...il.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
On 07/03/2024 08:10, Barry Song wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:00 PM Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> I agree, this is true. However, we've somehow accepted the fact that
> folio_likely_mapped_shared
> can result in false negatives or false positives to balance the
> overhead. So I really don't know :-)
>
> Maybe David and Vishal can give some comments here.
>
>>
>>> BTW, do we need to rebase our work against David's changes[1]?
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240227201548.857831-1-david@redhat.com/
>>
>> 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.
I'm not convinced we should be doing this in batches. We want the initial
folio_pte_batch() to be as loose as possible regarding permissions so that we
reduce our chances of splitting folios to the min. (e.g. ignore SW bits like
soft dirty, etc). I think it might be possible that some PTEs are RO and other
RW too (e.g. due to cow - although with the current cow impl, probably not. But
its fragile to assume that). Anyway, if we do an initial batch that ignores all
that then do this bit as a batch, you will end up smeering all the ptes with
whatever properties were set on the first pte, which probably isn't right.
I've done a similar conversion for madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() as part
of my swap-out series v4 (hoping to post imminently, but still working out a
latent bug that it triggers). I use ptep_test_and_clear_young() in that, which
arm64 can apply per-pte but avoid doing a contpte unfold/fold. I know you have
to clear dirty here too, but I think this pattern is preferable.
FYI, my swap-out series also halfway-batches madvise_free_pte_range() so that I
can batch free_swap_and_cache() for the swap entry case. Ideally the work you
are doing here would be rebased on top of that and plug-in to the approach
implemented there. (subject to others' views of course).
I'll cc you when I post it.
>>
>> 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