linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] add mTHP support 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <igzsxllakdkjjsum55d6b2rvj4cnjsgg5povgbsu6ylshstqsy@wbvxj6jvpnmt>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 09:05:27 +0000
From: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
CC: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>,
	"willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>, "wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com"
	<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	"21cnbao@...il.com" <21cnbao@...il.com>, "ryan.roberts@....com"
	<ryan.roberts@....com>, "shy828301@...il.com" <shy828301@...il.com>,
	"ziy@...dia.com" <ziy@...dia.com>, "ioworker0@...il.com"
	<ioworker0@...il.com>, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] add mTHP support for anonymous shmem

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:38:22AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.06.24 05:31, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 2024/6/4 20:05, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 05:45:20PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 2024/6/4 16:18, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 01:13:48PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > As a default, we should not be using large folios / mTHP for any shmem,
> > > > > > > > just like we did with THP via shmem_enabled. This is what this series
> > > > > > > > currently does, and is aprt of the whole mTHP user-space interface design.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Further, the mTHP controls should control all of shmem, not only
> > > > > > > > "anonymous shmem".
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes, that's what I thought and in my TODO list.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Good, it would be helpful to coordinate with Daniel and Pankaj.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've integrated patches 11 and 12 from the lsf RFC thread [1] on top of Baolin's
> > > > > v3 patches. You may find a version in my integration branch here [2]. I can
> > > > > attach them here if it's preferred.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240515055719.32577-1-da.gomez@samsung.com/
> > > > > [2] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=a23e7c06-c3b56926-a23ff749-74fe485fb347-371ca2bfd5d9869f&q=1&e=6974304e-a786-4255-93a7-57498540241c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.com%2Fdkruces%2Flinux-next%2F-%2Fcommits%2Fnext-20240604-shmem-mthp
> > > > > 
> > > > > The point here is to combine the large folios strategy I proposed with mTHP
> > > > > user controls. Would it make sense to limit the orders to the mapping order
> > > > > calculated based on the size and index?
> > > > 
> > > > IMO, for !anon shmem, this change makes sense to me. We should respect the
> > > > size and mTHP should act as a order filter.
> > > 
> > > What about respecing the size when within_size flag is enabled? Then, 'always'
> > > would allocate mTHP enabled folios, regardless of the size. And 'never'
> > > would ignore mTHP and size. So, 'never' can be used for this 'safe' boot case
> > > mentioned in the discussion.
> > 
> > Looks reasonable to me. What do you think, David?
> > 
> 
> That mimics existing PMD-THP behavior, right?
> 
> With "within_size", we must not exceed the size, with "always", we may
> exceed the size.

But right now we only check the inode size. With large folio support in
write_iter() we can have access to the length as well. I think this would solve
(paratially?) the cases where we don't have access to the file size and if we
perform writes in bigger chunks.

E.g. xfs_io -t -f -c "pwrite -b 2M -S 0x58 0 2M" /mnt/test/file

For 'within_size', the example above would allocate 512 pages instead of one
huge page. After patches [1] [2] we can get the size of the write to allocate
whatever mTHP/THP makes more sense for the length being passed.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240527163616.1135968-2-hch@lst.de/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240515055719.32577-12-da.gomez@samsung.com/

Here a quick hack for THP:

@@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ bool shmem_is_huge(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index, bool shmem_huge_force,
        case SHMEM_HUGE_WITHIN_SIZE:
                index = round_up(index + 1, HPAGE_PMD_NR);
                i_size = round_up(i_size_read(inode), PAGE_SIZE);
-               if (i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT >= index)
+               if ((i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT >= index) ||
+                   (len >> PAGE_SHIFT >= index))
                        return true;
                fallthrough;


> 
> > And what about 'advise' option? Silimar to 'within_size'?
> 
> Good question. What's the behavior of PMD-THP? I would assume it behaves
> like "within_size", because in the common case we mmap (+advise) only within
> the size of the file, not exceeding it.

It allocates a huge page on request when MADV_HUGEPAGE (regardless of the size).

> 
> (the always option, as I learned during the meeting, is primarily helpful
> when writing to tmpfs files in an append-fashion. With mmap()+madvise() that
> doesn't quite happen)

Let's benefit of larger writes as well if the chunk matches any of the mTHP/
THP sizes.

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> David / dhildenb
>