| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 17:36:01 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, sj@...nel.org,
maskray@...gle.com, ziy@...dia.com, ryan.roberts@....com, david@...hat.com,
21cnbao@...il.com, mhocko@...e.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com,
zokeefe@...gle.com, shy828301@...il.com, xiehuan09@...il.com,
libang.li@...group.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
songmuchun@...edance.com, peterx@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/vmscan: avoid split lazyfree THP during
shrink_folio_list()
On 2024/5/7 19:37, Lance Yang wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 5:33 PM Baolin Wang
> <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2024/5/7 16:26, Lance Yang wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 2:32 PM Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey Baolin,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for taking time to review!
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 12:01 PM Baolin Wang
>>>> <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024/5/1 12:27, Lance Yang wrote:
>>>>>> When the user no longer requires the pages, they would use
>>>>>> madvise(MADV_FREE) to mark the pages as lazy free. Subsequently, they
>>>>>> typically would not re-write to that memory again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During memory reclaim, if we detect that the large folio and its PMD are
>>>>>> both still marked as clean and there are no unexpected references
>>>>>> (such as GUP), so we can just discard the memory lazily, improving the
>>>>>> efficiency of memory reclamation in this case. On an Intel i5 CPU, reclaiming 1GiB of lazyfree THPs using
>>>>>> mem_cgroup_force_empty() results in the following runtimes in seconds
>>>>>> (shorter is better):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>> | Old | New | Change |
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>> | 0.683426 | 0.049197 | -92.80% |
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 9 +++++
>>>>>> mm/huge_memory.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> mm/rmap.c | 3 ++
>>>>>> 3 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>>>>>> index 38c4b5537715..017cee864080 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>>>>>> @@ -411,6 +411,8 @@ static inline bool thp_migration_supported(void)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>>>>>> pmd_t *pmd, bool freeze, struct folio *folio);
>>>>>> +bool unmap_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
>>>>>> + pmd_t *pmdp, struct folio *folio);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static inline void align_huge_pmd_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>> unsigned long *start,
>>>>>> @@ -492,6 +494,13 @@ static inline void align_huge_pmd_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>> unsigned long *start,
>>>>>> unsigned long *end) {}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static inline bool unmap_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>> + unsigned long addr, pmd_t *pmdp,
>>>>>> + struct folio *folio)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return false;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> #define split_huge_pud(__vma, __pmd, __address) \
>>>>>> do { } while (0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>>> index 145505a1dd05..90fdef847a88 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>>> @@ -2690,6 +2690,79 @@ static void unmap_folio(struct folio *folio)
>>>>>> try_to_unmap_flush();
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static bool __discard_trans_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>> + unsigned long addr, pmd_t *pmdp,
>>>>>> + struct folio *folio)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>>>>>> + int ref_count, map_count;
>>>>>> + pmd_t orig_pmd = *pmdp;
>>>>>> + struct mmu_gather tlb;
>>>>>> + struct page *page;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (pmd_dirty(orig_pmd) || folio_test_dirty(folio))
>>>>>> + return false;
>>>>>> + if (unlikely(!pmd_present(orig_pmd) || !pmd_trans_huge(orig_pmd)))
>>>>>> + return false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + page = pmd_page(orig_pmd);
>>>>>> + if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio))
>>>>>> + return false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm);
>>>>>> + orig_pmd = pmdp_huge_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pmdp);
>>>>>> + tlb_remove_pmd_tlb_entry(&tlb, pmdp, addr);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * Syncing against concurrent GUP-fast:
>>>>>> + * - clear PMD; barrier; read refcount
>>>>>> + * - inc refcount; barrier; read PMD
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + smp_mb();
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + ref_count = folio_ref_count(folio);
>>>>>> + map_count = folio_mapcount(folio);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * Order reads for folio refcount and dirty flag
>>>>>> + * (see comments in __remove_mapping()).
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + smp_rmb();
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * If the PMD or folio is redirtied at this point, or if there are
>>>>>> + * unexpected references, we will give up to discard this folio
>>>>>> + * and remap it.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * The only folio refs must be one from isolation plus the rmap(s).
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + if (ref_count != map_count + 1 || folio_test_dirty(folio) ||
>>>>>> + pmd_dirty(orig_pmd)) {
>>>>>> + set_pmd_at(mm, addr, pmdp, orig_pmd);
>>>>>> + return false;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + folio_remove_rmap_pmd(folio, page, vma);
>>>>>> + zap_deposited_table(mm, pmdp);
>>>>>> + add_mm_counter(mm, MM_ANONPAGES, -HPAGE_PMD_NR);
>>>>>> + folio_put(folio);
>>>>>
>>>>> IIUC, you missed handling mlock vma, see mlock_drain_local() in
>>>>> try_to_unmap_one().
>>>>
>>>> Good spot!
>>>>
>>>> I suddenly realized that I overlooked another thing: If we detect that a
>>>> PMD-mapped THP is within the range of the VM_LOCKED VMA, we
>>>> should check whether the TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK flag is set in
>>>> try_to_unmap_one(). If the flag is set, we will remove the PMD mapping
>>>> from the folio. Otherwise, the folio should be mlocked, which avoids
>>>> splitting the folio and then mlocking each page again.
>>>
>>> My previous response above is flawed - sorry :(
>>>
>>> If we detect that a PMD-mapped THP is within the range of the
>>> VM_LOCKED VMA.
>>>
>>> 1) If the TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK flag is set, we will try to remove the
>>> PMD mapping from the folio, as this series has done.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> 2) If the flag is not set, the large folio should be mlocked to prevent it
>>> from being picked during memory reclaim? Currently, we just leave it
>>
>> Yes. From commit 1acbc3f93614 ("mm: handle large folio when large folio
>> in VM_LOCKED VMA range"), large folios of the mlocked VMA will be
>> handled during page reclaim phase.
>>
>>> as is and do not to mlock it, IIUC.
>>
>> Original code already handle the mlock case after the PMD-mapped THP is
>> split in try_to_unmap_one():
>
> Yep. But this series doesn't do the TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD immediately.
>
>> /*
>> * If the folio is in an mlock()d vma, we must not swap
>> it out.
>> */
>> if (!(flags & TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK) &&
>> (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)) {
>> /* Restore the mlock which got missed */
>
> IIUC, we could detect a PMD-mapped THP here. So, I'm not sure if we
> need to mlock it to prevent it from being picked again during memory
> reclaim. The change is as follows:
For the page reclaim path, folio_check_references() should be able to
help restore the mlock of the PMD-mapped THP. However, for other paths
that call try_to_unmap(), I believe it is still necessary to check
whether the mlock of the PMD-mapped THP was missed.
Below code looks reasonable to me from a quick glance.
> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> index ed7f82036986..2a9d037ab23c 100644
> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> @@ -1673,7 +1673,8 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio
> *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> if (!(flags & TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK) &&
> (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)) {
> /* Restore the mlock which got missed */
> - if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> + if (!folio_test_large(folio) ||
> + (!pvmw.pte && (flags & TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD)))
> mlock_vma_folio(folio, vma);
> goto walk_done_err;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists