| 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: <e2b4933f-7102-47fc-bb33-ecb46eddedcf@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:03:00 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm/migrate: move NUMA hinting fault folio
isolation + checks under PTL
On 01.07.24 15:50, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2024, at 4:32, Huang, Ying wrote:
>
>> "Zi Yan" <ziy@...dia.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed Jun 26, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 21.06.24 22:48, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>> On 21 Jun 2024, at 16:18, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21.06.24 15:44, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20 Jun 2024, at 17:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently we always take a folio reference even if migration will not
>>>>>>>> even be tried or isolation failed, requiring us to grab+drop an additional
>>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further, we end up calling folio_likely_mapped_shared() while the folio
>>>>>>>> might have already been unmapped, because after we dropped the PTL, that
>>>>>>>> can easily happen. We want to stop touching mapcounts and friends from
>>>>>>>> such context, and only call folio_likely_mapped_shared() while the folio
>>>>>>>> is still mapped: mapcount information is pretty much stale and unreliable
>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So let's move checks into numamigrate_isolate_folio(), rename that
>>>>>>>> function to migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare(), and call that function
>>>>>>>> from callsites where we call migrate_misplaced_folio(), but still with
>>>>>>>> the PTL held.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can now stop taking temporary folio references, and really only take
>>>>>>>> a reference if folio isolation succeeded. Doing the
>>>>>>>> folio_likely_mapped_shared() + golio isolation under PT lock is now similar
>>>>>>>> to how we handle MADV_PAGEOUT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While at it, combine the folio_is_file_lru() checks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> include/linux/migrate.h | 7 ++++
>>>>>>>> mm/huge_memory.c | 8 ++--
>>>>>>>> mm/memory.c | 9 +++--
>>>>>>>> mm/migrate.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LGTM. Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One nit below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>>>>> index fc27dabcd8e3..4b2817bb2c7d 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -1688,11 +1688,13 @@ vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_numa_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>>>>>> if (node_is_toptier(nid))
>>>>>>>> last_cpupid = folio_last_cpupid(folio);
>>>>>>>> target_nid = numa_migrate_prep(folio, vmf, haddr, nid, &flags);
>>>>>>>> - if (target_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
>>>>>>>> - folio_put(folio);
>>>>>>>> + if (target_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>>>>>>>> + goto out_map;
>>>>>>>> + if (migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare(folio, vma, target_nid)) {
>>>>>>>> + flags |= TNF_MIGRATE_FAIL;
>>>>>>>> goto out_map;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> + /* The folio is isolated and isolation code holds a folio reference. */
>>>>>>>> spin_unlock(vmf->ptl);
>>>>>>>> writable = false;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>>>>>>> index 118660de5bcc..4fd1ecfced4d 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -5345,10 +5343,13 @@ static vm_fault_t do_numa_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>> last_cpupid = folio_last_cpupid(folio);
>>>>>>>> target_nid = numa_migrate_prep(folio, vmf, vmf->address, nid, &flags);
>>>>>>>> - if (target_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
>>>>>>>> - folio_put(folio);
>>>>>>>> + if (target_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>>>>>>>> + goto out_map;
>>>>>>>> + if (migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare(folio, vma, target_nid)) {
>>>>>>>> + flags |= TNF_MIGRATE_FAIL;
>>>>>>>> goto out_map;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These two locations are repeated code, maybe just merge the ifs into
>>>>>>> numa_migrate_prep(). Feel free to ignore if you are not going to send
>>>>>>> another version. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I went back and forth a couple of times and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) Didn't want to move numa_migrate_prep() into
>>>>>> migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare(), because having that code in
>>>>>> mm/migrate.c felt a bit odd.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree after checking the actual code, since the code is just
>>>>> updating NUMA fault stats and checking where the folio should be.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b) Didn't want to move migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare() because I enjoy
>>>>>> seeing the migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare() and
>>>>>> migrate_misplaced_folio() calls in the same callercontext.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also considered renaming numa_migrate_prep(), but wasn't really able to come up with a good name.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about numa_migrate_check()? Since it tells whether a folio should be
>>>>> migrated or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But maybe a) is not too bad?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'd have migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare() consume &flags and &target_nid, and perform the "flags |= TNF_MIGRATE_FAIL;" internally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would be your take?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would either rename numa_migrate_prep() or just do nothing. I have to admit
>>>>> that the "prep" and "prepare" in both function names motivated me to propose
>>>>> the merge, but now the actual code tells me they should be separate.
>>>>
>>>> Let's leave it like that for now. Renaming to numa_migrate_check() makes
>>>> sense, and likely moving more numa handling stuff in there.
>>>>
>>>> Bit I yet have to figure out why some of the memory.c vs. huge_memory.c
>>>> code differences exist, so we can unify them.
>>>>
>>>> For example, why did 33024536bafd9 introduce slightly different
>>>> last_cpupid handling in do_huge_pmd_numa_page(), whereby it seems like
>>>> some subtle difference in handling NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING? Maybe
>>>> I am missing something obvious. :)
>>>
>>> It seems to me that a sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING
>>> check is missing in do_huge_pmd_numa_page(). So the
>>>
>>> if (node_is_toptier(nid))
>>>
>>> should be
>>>
>>> if (!(sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) ||
>>> node_is_toptier(nid))
>>>
>>> to be consistent with other checks. Add Ying to confirm.
>>
>> Yes. It should be so. Sorry for my mistake and confusing.
>
> Thank you for the confirmation.
>
>>
>>> I also think a function like
>>>
>>> bool folio_has_cpupid(folio)
>>> {
>>> return !(sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING)
>>> || node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio));
>>> }
>>>
>>> would be better than the existing checks.
>>
>> Yes. This looks better. Even better, we can add some comments to the
>> function too.
>
> I will prepare a patch about it.
Do you have capacity to further consolidate the logic, maybe moving more
stuff into the numa_migrate_prep (and renaming it? :)).
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists