linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/rmap: do not add fully unmapped large folio to deferred split list

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: <bc8effda-6ff4-458d-a3ee-0d6f25cd41e0@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 21:32:58 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/rmap: do not add fully unmapped large folio to
 deferred split list

On 12.04.24 16:35, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2024, at 11:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>> On 11.04.24 17:32, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>>
>>> In __folio_remove_rmap(), a large folio is added to deferred split list
>>> if any page in a folio loses its final mapping. It is possible that
>>> the folio is unmapped fully, but it is unnecessary to add the folio
>>> to deferred split list at all. Fix it by checking folio mapcount before
>>> adding a folio to deferred split list.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/rmap.c | 9 ++++++---
>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>> index 2608c40dffad..d599a772e282 100644
>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>> @@ -1494,7 +1494,7 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(struct folio *folio,
>>>    		enum rmap_level level)
>>>    {
>>>    	atomic_t *mapped = &folio->_nr_pages_mapped;
>>> -	int last, nr = 0, nr_pmdmapped = 0;
>>> +	int last, nr = 0, nr_pmdmapped = 0, mapcount = 0;
>>>    	enum node_stat_item idx;
>>>     	__folio_rmap_sanity_checks(folio, page, nr_pages, level);
>>> @@ -1506,7 +1506,8 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(struct folio *folio,
>>>    			break;
>>>    		}
>>>   -		atomic_sub(nr_pages, &folio->_large_mapcount);
>>> +		mapcount = atomic_sub_return(nr_pages,
>>> +					     &folio->_large_mapcount) + 1;
>>
>> That becomes a new memory barrier on some archs. Rather just re-read it below. Re-reading should be fine here.
> 
> Would atomic_sub_return_relaxed() work? Originally I was using atomic_read(mapped)
> below, but to save an atomic op, I chose to read mapcount here.

Some points:

(1) I suggest reading about atomic get/set vs. atomic RMW vs. atomic
RMW that return a value -- and how they interact with memory barriers.
Further, how relaxed variants are only optimized on some architectures.

atomic_read() is usually READ_ONCE(), which is just an "ordinary" memory
access that should not be refetched. Usually cheaper than most other stuff
that involves atomics.

(2) We can either use folio_large_mapcount() == 0 or !atomic_read(mapped)
to figure out if the folio is now completely unmapped.

(3) There is one fundamental issue: if we are not batch-unmapping the whole
thing, we will still add the folios to the deferred split queue. Migration
would still do that, or if there are multiple VMAs covering a folio.

(4) We should really avoid making common operations slower only to make
some unreliable stats less unreliable.


We should likely do something like the following, which might even be a bit
faster in some cases because we avoid a function call in case we unmap
individual PTEs by checking _deferred_list ahead of time

diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index 2608c40dffad..356598b3dc3c 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -1553,9 +1553,11 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(struct folio *folio,
                  * page of the folio is unmapped and at least one page
                  * is still mapped.
                  */
-               if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
-                       if (level == RMAP_LEVEL_PTE || nr < nr_pmdmapped)
-                               deferred_split_folio(folio);
+               if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio) &&
+                   (level == RMAP_LEVEL_PTE || nr < nr_pmdmapped) &&
+                   atomic_read(mapped) &&
+                   data_race(list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)))
+                       deferred_split_folio(folio);
         }
  

I also thought about handling the scenario where we unmap the whole
think in smaller chunks. We could detect "!atomic_read(mapped)" and
detect that it is on the deferred split list, and simply remove it
from that list incrementing an THP_UNDO_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE event.

But it would be racy with concurrent remapping of the folio (might happen with
anon folios in corner cases I guess).

What we can do is the following, though:

diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index dc30139590e6..f05cba1807f2 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3133,6 +3133,8 @@ void folio_undo_large_rmappable(struct folio *folio)
         ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
         spin_lock_irqsave(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock, flags);
         if (!list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)) {
+               if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio))
+                       count_vm_event(THP_UNDO_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE);
                 ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
                 list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
         }

Adding the right event of course.


Then it's easy to filter out these "temporarily added to the list, but never split
before the folio was freed" cases.


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb