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: <81954ad6-5555-41bd-a026-ad13cecc5647@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:43:51 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 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 22:35, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:33 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Maybe we can let rmap remove code not touch deferred split queue in
> migration path at all because we know all the PTEs will be converted
> to migration entries. And all the migration entries will be converted
> back to PTEs regardless of whether try_to_migrate succeeded or not.

It's would be just another bandaid I think :/ Maybe a worthwile one, not 
sure.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb