linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] A Solution to Re-enable hugetlb vmemmap optimize

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <22c14513-af78-0f1d-5647-384ff9cb5993@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:24:34 +0800
From: Nanyong Sun <sunnanyong@...wei.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Matthew Wilcox
	<willy@...radead.org>, <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Andrew Morton
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
	<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Yu Zhao
	<yuzhao@...gle.com>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Sourav Panda
	<souravpanda@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] A Solution to Re-enable hugetlb vmemmap optimize

On 2024/3/14 7:32, David Rientjes wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Will Deacon wrote:
>
>>> How about take a new lock with irq disabled during BBM, like:
>>>
>>> +void vmemmap_update_pte(unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
>>> +{
>>> +     (NEW_LOCK);
>>> +    pte_clear(&init_mm, addr, ptep);
>>> +    flush_tlb_kernel_range(addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE);
>>> +    set_pte_at(&init_mm, addr, ptep, pte);
>>> +    spin_unlock_irq(NEW_LOCK);
>>> +}
>> I really think the only maintainable way to achieve this is to avoid the
>> possibility of a fault altogether.
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
> Nanyong, are you still actively working on making HVO possible on arm64?
>
> This would yield a substantial memory savings on hosts that are largely
> configured with hugetlbfs.  In our case, the size of this hugetlbfs pool
> is actually never changed after boot, but it sounds from the thread that
> there was an idea to make HVO conditional on FEAT_BBM.  Is this being
> pursued?
>
> If so, any testing help needed?
I'm afraid that FEAT_BBM may not solve the problem here, because from 
Arm ARM,
I see that FEAT_BBM is only used for changing block size. Therefore, in 
this HVO feature,
it can work in the split PMD stage, that is, BBM can be avoided in 
vmemmap_split_pmd,
but in the subsequent vmemmap_remap_pte, the Output address of PTE still 
needs to be
changed. I'm afraid FEAT_BBM is not competent for this stage. Perhaps my 
understanding
of ARM FEAT_BBM is wrong, and I hope someone can correct me.
Actually, the solution I first considered was to use the stop_machine 
method, but we have
products that rely on /proc/sys/vm/nr_overcommit_hugepages to 
dynamically use hugepages,
so I have to consider performance issues. If your product does not 
change the amount of huge
pages after booting, using stop_machine() may be a feasible way.
So far, I still haven't come up with a good solution.