| 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: <CAK1f24k1AuHDdrLFNLvwdoOy=xJTVkVdfY4+SN+KW5-EiMSa9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:02:51 +0800
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: madvise: Avoid split during MADV_PAGEOUT and MADV_COLD
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 5:03 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>
> On 13/03/2024 07:19, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:01 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Rework madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() to avoid splitting any large
> >> folio that is fully and contiguously mapped in the pageout/cold vm
> >> range. This change means that large folios will be maintained all the
> >> way to swap storage. This both improves performance during swap-out, by
> >> eliding the cost of splitting the folio, and sets us up nicely for
> >> maintaining the large folio when it is swapped back in (to be covered in
> >> a separate series).
> >>
> >> Folios that are not fully mapped in the target range are still split,
> >> but note that behavior is changed so that if the split fails for any
> >> reason (folio locked, shared, etc) we now leave it as is and move to the
> >> next pte in the range and continue work on the proceeding folios.
> >> Previously any failure of this sort would cause the entire operation to
> >> give up and no folios mapped at higher addresses were paged out or made
> >> cold. Given large folios are becoming more common, this old behavior
> >> would have likely lead to wasted opportunities.
> >>
> >> While we are at it, change the code that clears young from the ptes to
> >> use ptep_test_and_clear_young(), which is more efficent than
> >> get_and_clear/modify/set, especially for contpte mappings on arm64,
> >> where the old approach would require unfolding/refolding and the new
> >> approach can be done in place.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
> >
> > This looks so much better than our initial RFC.
> > Thank you for your excellent work!
>
> Thanks - its a team effort - I had your PoC and David's previous batching work
> to use as a template.
>
> >
> >> ---
> >> mm/madvise.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> >> index 547dcd1f7a39..56c7ba7bd558 100644
> >> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> >> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> >> @@ -336,6 +336,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
> >> LIST_HEAD(folio_list);
> >> bool pageout_anon_only_filter;
> >> unsigned int batch_count = 0;
> >> + int nr;
> >>
> >> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> >> return -EINTR;
> >> @@ -423,7 +424,8 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
> >> return 0;
> >> flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm);
> >> arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >> - for (; addr < end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> >> + for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE) {
> >> + nr = 1;
> >> ptent = ptep_get(pte);
> >>
> >> if (++batch_count == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
> >> @@ -447,55 +449,66 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
> >> continue;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> - * Creating a THP page is expensive so split it only if we
> >> - * are sure it's worth. Split it if we are only owner.
> >> + * If we encounter a large folio, only split it if it is not
> >> + * fully mapped within the range we are operating on. Otherwise
> >> + * leave it as is so that it can be swapped out whole. If we
> >> + * fail to split a folio, leave it in place and advance to the
> >> + * next pte in the range.
> >> */
> >> if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> >> - int err;
> >> -
> >> - if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
> >> - break;
> >> - if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
> >> - break;
> >> - if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> >> - break;
> >> - folio_get(folio);
> >> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >> - pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
> >> - start_pte = NULL;
> >> - 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();
> >> - pte--;
> >> - addr -= PAGE_SIZE;
> >> - continue;
> >> + const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY |
> >> + FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> >> + int max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;
> >> +
> >> + nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
> >> + fpb_flags, NULL);
> >
> > I wonder if we have a quick way to avoid folio_pte_batch() if users
> > are doing madvise() on a portion of a large folio.
>
> Good idea. Something like this?:
>
> if (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_pfn(folio)
> nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
> fpb_flags, NULL);
>
> If we are not mapping the first page of the folio, then it can't be a full
> mapping, so no need to call folio_pte_batch(). Just split it.
if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
[...]
nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
fpb_flags, NULL);
+ if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
+ continue;
Could we use folio_estimated_sharers as an early exit point here?
if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
int err;
- if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
- continue;
[...]
>
> >
> >> +
> >> + if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
> >> + int err;
> >> +
> >> + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
> >> + continue;
> >> + if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
> >> + continue;
> >> + if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> >> + continue;
> >> + folio_get(folio);
> >> + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >> + pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
> >> + start_pte = NULL;
> >> + err = split_folio(folio);
> >> + folio_unlock(folio);
> >> + folio_put(folio);
> >> + if (err)
> >> + continue;
> >> + start_pte = pte =
> >> + pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> >> + if (!start_pte)
> >> + break;
> >> + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >> + nr = 0;
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Do not interfere with other mappings of this folio and
> >> - * non-LRU folio.
> >> + * non-LRU folio. If we have a large folio at this point, we
> >> + * know it is fully mapped so if its mapcount is the same as its
> >> + * number of pages, it must be exclusive.
> >> */
> >> - if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
> >> + if (!folio_test_lru(folio) ||
> >> + folio_mapcount(folio) != folio_nr_pages(folio))
> >> continue;
> >
> > This looks so perfect and is exactly what I wanted to achieve.
> >
> >>
> >> if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
> >> continue;
> >>
> >> - VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio), folio);
> >> -
> >> - if (!pageout && pte_young(ptent)) {
> >> - ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
> >> - tlb->fullmm);
> >> - ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
> >> - set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> >> - tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> >> + if (!pageout) {
> >> + for (; nr != 0; nr--, pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> >> + if (ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, addr, pte))
> >> + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
IIRC, some of the architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB with set_pte_at and
tlb_remove_tlb_entry. So, didn't we consider remapping the PTE with old after
pte clearing?
Thanks,
Lance
> >> + }
> >
> > This looks so smart. if it is not pageout, we have increased pte
> > and addr here; so nr is 0 and we don't need to increase again in
> > for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE)
> >
> > otherwise, nr won't be 0. so we will increase addr and
> > pte by nr.
>
> Indeed. I'm hoping that Lance is able to follow a similar pattern for
> madvise_free_pte_range().
>
>
> >
> >
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >>
> >
> > Overall, LGTM,
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists