linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: zswap: calculate limits only when updated

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: <CAJD7tkYMM9oDQYsWPcQNctRRH52+oM-3cUhxV+_7Qg1NNZx4cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:05:39 -0700
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: zswap: calculate limits only when updated

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:48 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10.04.24 02:52, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > [..]
> >>> Do we need a separate notifier chain for totalram_pages() updates?
> >>
> >> Good question. I actually might have the requirement to notify some arch
> >> code (s390x) from virtio-mem when fake adding/removing memory, and
> >> already wondered how to best wire that up.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can squeeze that into the existing notifier chain, but needs a
> >> bit of thought.
> >
>
> Sorry for the late reply, I had to think about this a bit.
>
> > Do you mean by adding new actions (e.g. MEM_FAKE_ONLINE,
> > MEM_FAKE_OFFLINE), or by reusing the existing actions (MEM_ONLINE,
> > MEM_OFFLINE, etc).
>
> At least for virtio-mem, I think we could have a MEM_ONLINE/MEM_OFFLINE
> that prepare the whole range belonging to the Linux memory block
> (/sys/devices/system/memory/memory...) to go online, and then have
> something like MEM_SOFT_ONLINE/MEM_SOFT_OFFLINE or
> ENABLE_PAGES/DISABLE_PAGES ... notifications when parts become usable
> (!PageOffline, handed to the buddy) or unusable (PageOffline, removed
> from the buddy).
>
> There are some details to be figured out, but it could work.
>
> And as virtio-mem currently operates in pageblock granularity (e.g., 2
> MiB), but frequently handles multiple contiguous pageblocks within a
> Linux memory block, it's not that bad.
>
>
> But the issue I see with ballooning is that we operate here often on
> page granularity. While we could optimize some cases, we might get quite
> some overhead from all the notifications. Alternatively, we could send a
> list of pages, but it won't win a beauty contest.
>
> I think the main issue is that, for my purpose (virtio-mem on s390x), I
> need to notify about the exact memory ranges (so I can reinitialize
> stuff in s390x code when memory gets effectively re-enabled). For other
> cases (total pages changing), we don't need the memory ranges, but only
> the "summary" -- or a notification afterwards that the total pages were
> just changed quite a bit.


Thanks for shedding some light on this. Although I am not familiar
with ballooning, sending notifications on page granularity updates
sounds terrible. It seems like this is not as straightforward as I had
anticipated.

I was going to take a stab at this, but given that the motivation is a
minor optimization on the zswap side, I will probably just give up :)

For now, I will drop this optimization from the series for now, and I
can revisit it if/when notifications for totalram_pages() are
implemented at some point. Please CC me if you do so for the s390x use
case :)

>
>
> >
> > New actions mean minimal impact to existing notifiers, but it may make
> > more sense to reuse MEM_ONLINE and MEM_OFFLINE to have generic actions
> > that mean "memory increased" and "memory decreased".
>
> Likely, we should keep their semantics unchanged. Things like KASAN want
> to allocate metadata memory for the whole range, not on some smallish
> pieces. It really means "This Linux memory block goes online/offline,
> please prepare for that.". And again, memory ballooning with small pages
> is a bit problematic.
>
> >
> > I suppose we can add new actions and then separately (and probably
> > incrementally) audit existing notifiers to check if they want to
> > handle the new actions as well.
> >
> > Another consideration is that apparently some ballooning drivers also
> > register notifiers, so we need to make sure there is no possibility of
> > deadlock/recursion.
>
> Right.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>