linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] kpageflags: fix wrong KPF_THP on non-pmd-mappable compound pages

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: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:10:26 +1200
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, ran xiaokai <ranxiaokai627@....com>, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	svetly.todorov@...verge.com, ran.xiaokai@....com.cn, peterx@...hat.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, 
	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, 
	Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kpageflags: fix wrong KPF_THP on non-pmd-mappable
 compound pages

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:40 AM Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed Jun 26, 2024 at 7:07 AM EDT, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > On 26/06/2024 04:06, Zi Yan wrote:
> > > On Tue Jun 25, 2024 at 10:49 PM EDT, ran xiaokai wrote:
> > >> From: Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@....com.cn>
> > >>
> > >> KPF_COMPOUND_HEAD and KPF_COMPOUND_TAIL are set on "common" compound
> > >> pages, which means of any order, but KPF_THP should only be set
> > >> when the folio is a 2M pmd mappable THP.
> >
> > Why should KPF_THP only be set on 2M THP? What problem does it cause as it is
> > currently configured?
> >
> > I would argue that mTHP is still THP so should still have the flag. And since
> > these smaller mTHP sizes are disabled by default, only mTHP-aware user space
> > will be enabling them, so I'll naively state that it should not cause compat
> > issues as is.
> >
> > Also, the script at tools/mm/thpmaps relies on KPF_THP being set for all mTHP
> > sizes to function correctly. So that would need to be reworked if making this
> > change.
>
> + more folks working on mTHP
>
> I agree that mTHP is still THP, but we might want different
> stats/counters for it, since people might want to keep the old THP counters
> consistent. See recent commits on adding mTHP counters:
> ec33687c6749 ("mm: add per-order mTHP anon_fault_alloc and anon_fault_fallback
> counters"), 1f97fd042f38 ("mm: shmem: add mTHP counters for anonymous shmem")
>
> and changes to make THP counter to only count PMD THP:
> 835c3a25aa37 ("mm: huge_memory: add the missing folio_test_pmd_mappable() for
> THP split statistics")
>
> In this case, I wonder if we want a new KPF_MTHP bit for mTHP and some
> adjustment on tools/mm/thpmaps.

It seems we have to do this though I think keeping KPF_THP and adding a
separate bit like KPF_PMD_MAPPED makes more sense. but those tools
relying on KPF_THP need to realize this and check the new bit , which is
not done now.
whether the mTHP's name is mTHP or THP will make no difference for
this case:-)

>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi
>

Thanks
Barry