linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm: shmem: add multi-size THP sysfs interface for anonymous shmem

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 12:45:09 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 hughd@...gle.com
Cc: willy@...radead.org, david@...hat.com, ioworker0@...il.com,
 wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, ying.huang@...el.com, 21cnbao@...il.com,
 shy828301@...il.com, ziy@...dia.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm: shmem: add multi-size THP sysfs interface for
 anonymous shmem



On 2024/5/7 18:52, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 06/05/2024 09:46, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> To support the use of mTHP with anonymous shmem, add a new sysfs interface
>> 'shmem_enabled' in the '/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-kB/'
>> directory for each mTHP to control whether shmem is enabled for that mTHP,
>> with a value similar to the top level 'shmem_enabled', which can be set to:
>> "always", "inherit (to inherit the top level setting)", "within_size", "advise",
>> "never", "deny", "force". These values follow the same semantics as the top
>> level, except the 'deny' is equivalent to 'never', and 'force' is equivalent
>> to 'always' to keep compatibility.
> 
> We decided at [1] to not allow 'force' for non-PMD-sizes.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/533f37e9-81bf-4fa2-9b72-12cdcb1edb3f@redhat.com/
> 
> However, thinking about this a bit more, I wonder if the decision we made to
> allow all hugepages-xxkB/enabled controls to take "inherit" was the wrong one.
> Perhaps we should have only allowed the PMD-sized enable=inherit (this is just
> for legacy back compat after all, I don't think there is any use case where
> changing multiple mTHP size controls atomically is actually useful). Applying

Agree. This is also our usage of 'inherit'.

> that pattern here, it means the top level can always take "force" without any
> weird error checking. And we would allow "force" on the PMD-sized control but
> not on the others - again this is easy to error check.
> 
> Does this pattern make more sense? If so, is it too late to change
> hugepages-xxkB/enabled interface?

IMO, this sounds reasonable to me. Let's see what others think, David?