linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] mm: swap: free_swap_and_cache_nr() as batched free_swap_and

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 17:13:29 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 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>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
 Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] mm: swap: free_swap_and_cache_nr() as batched
 free_swap_and_cache()

On 08.04.24 15:27, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 13:47, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 08/04/2024 13:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * swap_pte_batch - detect a PTE batch for a set of contiguous swap entries
>>>>> + * @start_ptep: Page table pointer for the first entry.
>>>>> + * @max_nr: The maximum number of table entries to consider.
>>>>> + * @entry: Swap entry recovered from the first table entry.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Detect a batch of contiguous swap entries: consecutive (non-present) PTEs
>>>>> + * containing swap entries all with consecutive offsets and targeting the same
>>>>> + * swap type.
>>>>> + *
>>>>
>>>> Likely you should document that any swp pte bits are ignored? ()
>>>
>>> Now that I understand what swp pte bits are, I think the simplest thing is to
>>> just make this function always consider the pte bits by using pte_same() as you
>>> suggest below? I don't think there is ever a case for ignoring the swp pte bits?
>>> And then I don't need to do anything special for uffd-wp either (below you
>>> suggested not doing batching when the VMA has uffd enabled).
>>>
>>> Any concerns?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + * max_nr must be at least one and must be limited by the caller so scanning
>>>>> + * cannot exceed a single page table.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Return: the number of table entries in the batch.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static inline int swap_pte_batch(pte_t *start_ptep, int max_nr,
>>>>> +                 swp_entry_t entry)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    const pte_t *end_ptep = start_ptep + max_nr;
>>>>> +    unsigned long expected_offset = swp_offset(entry) + 1;
>>>>> +    unsigned int expected_type = swp_type(entry);
>>>>> +    pte_t *ptep = start_ptep + 1;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    VM_WARN_ON(max_nr < 1);
>>>>> +    VM_WARN_ON(non_swap_entry(entry));
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    while (ptep < end_ptep) {
>>>>> +        pte_t pte = ptep_get(ptep);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        if (pte_none(pte) || pte_present(pte))
>>>>> +            break;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        entry = pte_to_swp_entry(pte);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        if (non_swap_entry(entry) ||
>>>>> +            swp_type(entry) != expected_type ||
>>>>> +            swp_offset(entry) != expected_offset)
>>>>> +            break;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        expected_offset++;
>>>>> +        ptep++;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    return ptep - start_ptep;
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Looks very clean :)
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering whether we could similarly construct the expected swp PTE and
>>>> only check pte_same.
>>>>
>>>> expected_pte = __swp_entry_to_pte(__swp_entry(expected_type, expected_offset));
>>>
>>> So planning to do this.
>>
>> Of course this clears all the swp pte bits in expected_pte. So need to do something a bit more complex.
>>
>> If we can safely assume all offset bits are contiguous in every per-arch representation then we can do:
> 
> Looks like at least csky and hexagon store the offset in discontiguous regions.
> So it will have to be the second approach if we want to avoid anything
> arch-specific. I'll assume that for now; we can always specialize
> pte_next_swp_offset() per-arch in the future if needed.

Sounds good. Just have a generic variant as you proposed, and add the 
per-arch one if really required later.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb