linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] mm: vmalloc: don't account for number of nodes for HUGE

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]

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 10:34:00 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-modules@...r.kernel.org" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] mm: vmalloc: don't account for number of nodes
 for HUGE_VMAP allocations

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 06:07:19AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 11/04/2024 à 18:05, Mike Rapoport a écrit :
> > From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@...nel.org>
> > 
> > vmalloc allocations with VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP that do not explictly
> > specify node ID will use huge pages only if size_per_node is larger than
> > PMD_SIZE.
> > Still the actual allocated memory is not distributed between nodes and
> > there is no advantage in such approach.
> > On the contrary, BPF allocates PMD_SIZE * num_possible_nodes() for each
> > new bpf_prog_pack, while it could do with PMD_SIZE'ed packs.
> > 
> > Don't account for number of nodes for VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP with
> > NUMA_NO_NODE and use huge pages whenever the requested allocation size
> > is larger than PMD_SIZE.
> 
> Patch looks ok but message is confusing. We also use huge pages at PTE 
> size, for instance 512k pages or 16k pages on powerpc 8xx, while 
> PMD_SIZE is 4M.

Ok, I'll rephrase.
 
> Christophe
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >   mm/vmalloc.c | 9 ++-------
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > index 22aa63f4ef63..5fc8b514e457 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > @@ -3737,8 +3737,6 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
> >   	}
> >   
> >   	if (vmap_allow_huge && (vm_flags & VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP)) {
> > -		unsigned long size_per_node;
> > -
> >   		/*
> >   		 * Try huge pages. Only try for PAGE_KERNEL allocations,
> >   		 * others like modules don't yet expect huge pages in
> > @@ -3746,13 +3744,10 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
> >   		 * supporting them.
> >   		 */
> >   
> > -		size_per_node = size;
> > -		if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > -			size_per_node /= num_online_nodes();
> > -		if (arch_vmap_pmd_supported(prot) && size_per_node >= PMD_SIZE)
> > +		if (arch_vmap_pmd_supported(prot) && size >= PMD_SIZE)
> >   			shift = PMD_SHIFT;
> >   		else
> > -			shift = arch_vmap_pte_supported_shift(size_per_node);
> > +			shift = arch_vmap_pte_supported_shift(size);
> >   
> >   		align = max(real_align, 1UL << shift);
> >   		size = ALIGN(real_size, 1UL << shift);

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.