| 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: <2962269e-fb74-4da3-b7b7-b75a5c436e0e@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 14:27:26 +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 08.03.24 14:05, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 07/03/2024 18:54, Barry Song wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:31 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/03/2024 12:01, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 7:45 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> we don't want reclamation overhead later. and we want memories immediately
>>>> available to others.
>>>
>>> But by that logic, you also don't want to leave the large folio partially mapped
>>> all the way until the last subpage is CoWed. Surely you would want to reclaim it
>>> when you reach partial map status?
>>
>> To some extent, I agree. But then we will have two many copies. The last
>> subpage is small, and a safe place to copy instead.
>>
>> We actually had to tune userspace to decrease partial map as too much
>> partial map both unfolded CONT-PTE and wasted too much memory. if a
>> vma had too much partial map, we disabled mTHP on this VMA.
>
> I actually had a whacky idea around introducing selectable page size ABI
> per-process that might help here. I know Android is doing work to make the
> system 16K page compatible. You could run most of the system processes with 16K
> ABI on top of 4K kernel. Then those processes don't even have the ability to
> madvise/munmap/mprotect/mremap anything less than 16K alignment so that acts as
> an anti-fragmentation mechanism while allowing non-16K capable processes to run
> side-by-side. Just a passing thought...
It sounds interesting, but and also like a lot of work.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists