| 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: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:54 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, chrisl@...nel.org,
surenb@...gle.com, kasong@...cent.com, minchan@...nel.org,
willy@...radead.org, ryan.roberts@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: swap: reuse exclusive folio directly instead of
wp page faults
On 31.05.24 14:30, Barry Song wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 12:20 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 12:10 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31.05.24 13:55, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:08 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31.05.24 12:48, Barry Song wrote:
>>>>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After swapping out, we perform a swap-in operation. If we first read
>>>>>> and then write, we encounter a major fault in do_swap_page for reading,
>>>>>> along with additional minor faults in do_wp_page for writing. However,
>>>>>> the latter appears to be unnecessary and inefficient. Instead, we can
>>>>>> directly reuse in do_swap_page and completely eliminate the need for
>>>>>> do_wp_page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch achieves that optimization specifically for exclusive folios.
>>>>>> The following microbenchmark demonstrates the significant reduction in
>>>>>> minor faults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define DATA_SIZE (2UL * 1024 * 1024)
>>>>>> #define PAGE_SIZE (4UL * 1024)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static void *read_write_data(char *addr)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> char tmp;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for (int i = 0; i < DATA_SIZE; i += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>>>> tmp = *(volatile char *)(addr + i);
>>>>>> *(volatile char *)(addr + i) = tmp;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct rusage ru;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> char *addr = mmap(NULL, DATA_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>>>>>> MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
>>>>>> memset(addr, 0x11, DATA_SIZE);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do {
>>>>>> long old_ru_minflt, old_ru_majflt;
>>>>>> long new_ru_minflt, new_ru_majflt;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> madvise(addr, DATA_SIZE, MADV_PAGEOUT);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &ru);
>>>>>> old_ru_minflt = ru.ru_minflt;
>>>>>> old_ru_majflt = ru.ru_majflt;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> read_write_data(addr);
>>>>>> getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &ru);
>>>>>> new_ru_minflt = ru.ru_minflt;
>>>>>> new_ru_majflt = ru.ru_majflt;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> printf("minor faults:%ld major faults:%ld\n",
>>>>>> new_ru_minflt - old_ru_minflt,
>>>>>> new_ru_majflt - old_ru_majflt);
>>>>>> } while(0);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> w/o patch,
>>>>>> / # ~/a.out
>>>>>> minor faults:512 major faults:512
>>>>>>
>>>>>> w/ patch,
>>>>>> / # ~/a.out
>>>>>> minor faults:0 major faults:512
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Minor faults decrease to 0!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> mm/memory.c | 7 ++++---
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>>>>> index eef4e482c0c2..e1d2e339958e 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>>>>> @@ -4325,9 +4325,10 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> if (!folio_test_ksm(folio) &&
>>>>>> (exclusive || folio_ref_count(folio) == 1)) {
>>>>>> - if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
>>>>>> - pte = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte), vma);
>>>>>> - vmf->flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>>>>>> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) {
>>>>>> + pte = pte_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte), vma);
>>>>>> + if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE)
>>>>>> + vmf->flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>>>>>
>>>>> This implies, that even on a read fault, you would mark the pte dirty
>>>>> and it would have to be written back to swap if still in the swap cache
>>>>> and only read.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is controversial.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is less controversial is doing what mprotect() via
>>>>> change_pte_range()/can_change_pte_writable() would do: mark the PTE
>>>>> writable but not dirty.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest setting the pte only dirty if FAULT_FLAG_WRITE is set.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> I assume you mean something as below?
>>>
>>> It raises an important point: uffd-wp must be handled accordingly.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>>> index eef4e482c0c2..dbf1ba8ccfd6 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>>> @@ -4317,6 +4317,10 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>> add_mm_counter(vma->vm_mm, MM_SWAPENTS, -nr_pages);
>>>> pte = mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot);
>>>>
>>>> + if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(vmf->orig_pte))
>>>> + pte = pte_mksoft_dirty(pte);
>>>> + if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(vmf->orig_pte))
>>>> + pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(pte);
>>>> /*
>>>> * Same logic as in do_wp_page(); however, optimize for pages that are
>>>> * certainly not shared either because we just allocated them without
>>>> @@ -4325,18 +4329,19 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>> */
>>>> if (!folio_test_ksm(folio) &&
>>>> (exclusive || folio_ref_count(folio) == 1)) {
>>>> - if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
>>>> - pte = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte), vma);
>>>> - vmf->flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>>>> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) {
>>>> + if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
>>>> + pte = pte_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte), vma);
>>>> + vmf->flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>>>> + } else if ((!vma_soft_dirty_enabled(vma) ||
>>>> pte_soft_dirty(pte))
>>>> + && !userfaultfd_pte_wp(vma, pte)) {
>>>> + pte = pte_mkwrite(pte, vma);
>>>
>>> Even with FAULT_FLAG_WRITE we must respect uffd-wp and *not* do a
>>> pte_mkwrite(pte). So we have to catch and handle that earlier (I could
>>> have sworn we handle that somehow).
>>>
>>> Note that the existing
>>> pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(pte);
>>>
>>> Will fix that up because it does an implicit pte_wrprotect().
>>
>> This is exactly what I have missed as I am struggling with why WRITE_FAULT
>> blindly does mkwrite without checking userfaultfd_pte_wp().
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So maybe what would work is
>>>
>>>
>>> if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) && !userfaultfd_pte_wp(vma, pte) &&
>>> !vma_soft_dirty_enabled(vma)) {
>>> pte = pte_mkwrite(pte);
>>>
>>> /* Only set the PTE dirty on write fault. */
>>> if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
>>> pte = pte_mkdirty(pte);
>>> vmf->flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>>> }
>
> WRITE_FAULT has a pte_mkdirty, so it doesn't need to check
> "!vma_soft_dirty_enabled(vma)"?
> Maybe I thought too much, just the simple code below should work?
That would likely not handle softdirty correctly in case we end up in
pte_mkwrite(pte, vma); note that pte_mksoft_dirty() will not wrprotect ...
(note that we shouldn't optimize for softdirty handling)
>
> if (!folio_test_ksm(folio) &&
> (exclusive || folio_ref_count(folio) == 1)) {
> if (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) {
> if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
> pte = pte_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte), vma);
> vmf->flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
> } else {
> pte = pte_mkwrite(pte, vma);
> }
> }
> rmap_flags |= RMAP_EXCLUSIVE;
> }
>
> if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(vmf->orig_pte))
> pte = pte_mksoft_dirty(pte);
> if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(vmf->orig_pte))
> pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(pte);
>
> This still uses the implicit wrprotect of pte_mkuffd_wp.
But the wrprotected->writable->wrprotected path really is confusing. I'd
prefer to set these bits ahead of time instead, so we can properly rely
on them -- like we do in other code.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists