| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4yuBJW578sL5dsKvWP2A=x54zV5b+qbwfy9vj8rFiQM1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:33:26 +1200
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, chrisl@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
shy828301@...il.com, surenb@...gle.com, v-songbaohua@...o.com,
willy@...radead.org, ying.huang@...el.com, yosryahmed@...gle.com,
yuzhao@...gle.com, Shuai Yuan <yuanshuai@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: use folio_add_new_anon_rmap() if folio_test_anon(folio)==false
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:46 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 18.06.24 01:11, Barry Song wrote:
> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
> >
> > For the !folio_test_anon(folio) case, we can now invoke folio_add_new_anon_rmap()
> > with the rmap flags set to either EXCLUSIVE or non-EXCLUSIVE. This action will
> > suppress the VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO check within __folio_add_anon_rmap() while initiating
> > the process of bringing up mTHP swapin.
> >
> > static __always_inline void __folio_add_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio,
> > struct page *page, int nr_pages, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > unsigned long address, rmap_t flags, enum rmap_level level)
> > {
> > ...
> > if (unlikely(!folio_test_anon(folio))) {
> > VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
> > level != RMAP_LEVEL_PMD, folio);
> > }
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > It also improves the code’s readability. Currently, all new anonymous
> > folios calling folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes() are order-0. This ensures
> > that new folios cannot be partially exclusive; they are either entirely
> > exclusive or entirely shared.
> >
> > Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
> > Tested-by: Shuai Yuan <yuanshuai@...o.com>
> > ---
> > mm/memory.c | 8 ++++++++
> > mm/swapfile.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 1f24ecdafe05..620654c13b2f 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -4339,6 +4339,14 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > if (unlikely(folio != swapcache && swapcache)) {
> > folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, address, RMAP_EXCLUSIVE);
> > folio_add_lru_vma(folio, vma);
> > + } else if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {
> > + /*
> > + * We currently only expect small !anon folios, for which we now
> > + * that they are either fully exclusive or fully shared. If we
> > + * ever get large folios here, we have to be careful.
> > + */
> > + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio));
> > + folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, address, rmap_flags);
> > } else {
> > folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes(folio, page, nr_pages, vma, address,
> > rmap_flags);
> > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> > index ae1d2700f6a3..69efa1a57087 100644
> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> > @@ -1908,8 +1908,17 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_writeback(folio), folio);
> > if (pte_swp_exclusive(old_pte))
> > rmap_flags |= RMAP_EXCLUSIVE;
> > -
> > - folio_add_anon_rmap_pte(folio, page, vma, addr, rmap_flags);
> > + /*
> > + * We currently only expect small !anon folios, for which we now that
> > + * they are either fully exclusive or fully shared. If we ever get
> > + * large folios here, we have to be careful.
> > + */
> > + if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {
> > + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio));
>
> (comment applies to both cases)
>
> Thinking about Hugh's comment, we should likely add here:
>
> VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio), folio);
>
> [the check we are removing from __folio_add_anon_rmap()]
>
> and document for folio_add_new_anon_rmap() in patch #1, that when
> dealing with folios that might be mapped concurrently by others, the
> folio lock must be held.
I assume you mean something like the following for patch#1?
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index df1a43295c85..20986b25f1b2 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -1394,7 +1394,8 @@ void folio_add_anon_rmap_pmd(struct folio
*folio, struct page *page,
*
* Like folio_add_anon_rmap_*() but must only be called on *new* folios.
* This means the inc-and-test can be bypassed.
- * The folio does not have to be locked.
+ * The folio doesn't necessarily need to be locked while it's
exclusive unless two threads
+ * map it concurrently. However, the folio must be locked if it's shared.
*
* If the folio is pmd-mappable, it is accounted as a THP.
*/
@@ -1406,6 +1407,7 @@ void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio
*folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
int nr_pmdmapped = 0;
VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_hugetlb(folio), folio);
+ VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!exclusive && !folio_test_locked(folio), folio);
VM_BUG_ON_VMA(address < vma->vm_start ||
address + (nr << PAGE_SHIFT) > vma->vm_end, vma);
__folio_set_swapbacked(folio);
>
> > + folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, addr, rmap_flags);
> > + } else {
> > + folio_add_anon_rmap_pte(folio, page, vma, addr, rmap_flags);
> > + }
> > } else { /* ksm created a completely new copy */
> > folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, addr, RMAP_EXCLUSIVE);
> > folio_add_lru_vma(folio, vma);
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists