| 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: <b174d4e1-e1ef-4766-91bc-de822eee30fb@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 12:45:28 +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 12:42, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 07/03/2024 11:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 07.03.24 12:26, Barry Song wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 7:13 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/03/2024 10:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So sad I am wrong again 😢
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wp_page_reuse() will currently reuse a PTE part of a large folio only if
>>>>>> a single PTE remains mapped (refcount == 0).
>>>>>
>>>>> ^ == 1
>>>
>>> seems this needs improvement. it is a waste the last subpage can
>>
>> My take that is WIP:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231124132626.235350-1-david@redhat.com/T/#u
>>
>>> reuse the whole large folio. i was doing it in a quite different way,
>>> if the large folio had only one subpage left, i would do copy and
>>> released the large folio[1]. and if i could reuse the whole large folio
>>> with CONT-PTE, i would reuse the whole large folio[2]. in mainline,
>>> we don't have this cont-pte luxury exposed to mm, so i guess we can
>>> not do [2] easily, but [1] seems to be an optimization.
>>
>> Yeah, I had essentially the same idea: just free up the large folio if most of
>> the stuff is unmapped. But that's rather a corner-case optimization, so I did
>> not proceed with that.
>>
>
> I'm not sure it's a corner case, really? - process forks, then both parent and
> child and write to all pages in what was previously a fully & contiguously
> mapped large folio?
Well, with 2 MiB my assumption was that while it can happen, it's rather
rare. With smaller THP it might get more likely, agreed.
>
> Reggardless, why is it an optimization to do the copy for the last subpage and
> syncrhonously free the large folio? It's already partially mapped so is on the
> deferred split list and can be split if memory is tight.
At least for 2 MiB THP, it might make sense to make that large folio
available immediately again, even without memory pressure. Even
compaction would not compact it.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists