| 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: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 11:54:43 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>, Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
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 07.03.24 11:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.03.24 11:50, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 07/03/2024 09:33, Barry Song wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 10:07 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> You are correct. I believe this scenario could indeed occur. For instance,
>>> if process A forks process B and then unmaps itself, leaving B as the
>>> sole process owning the large folio. The current wp_page_reuse() function
>>> will reuse PTE one by one while the specific subpage is written.
>>
>> Hmm - I thought it would only reuse if the total mapcount for the folio was 1.
>> And since it is a large folio with each page mapped once in proc B, I thought
>> every subpage write would cause a copy except the last one? I haven't looked at
>> the code for a while. But I had it in my head that this is an area we need to
>> improve for mTHP.
>
> wp_page_reuse() will currently reuse a PTE part of a large folio only if
> a single PTE remains mapped (refcount == 0).
^ == 1
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists