linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] zswap: increment swapin count for non-pivot swapped in 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJD7tkbPR7ZCR9nTpn3SoF6hD8A7_CuPh+SffHG8Mdo=LSU55w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:22:04 -0700
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	flintglass@...il.com, chengming.zhou@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] zswap: increment swapin count for non-pivot
 swapped in pages

On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:46 PM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 1:02 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hmm, but there is a chance that these pages are not actually needed,
> > in which case we will unnecessarily increase the zswap protection.
> > Does the readahead window self-correct if the pages were not used?
>
> Hmm yeah it's kinda hard to predict if a swapped in page is strictly
> necessary in this context. We don't have this information at the time
> of the read.
>
> That said, I think erring on the side of safety is OK here - my
> understanding that readahead, while predictive in nature, only gets
> progressively more aggressive if we get signals that it's helpful (i.e
> the memory access patterns display sequential behavior).

If the readahead logic is expected to adapt in these situations (and I
think it is), then I think we are fine. Perhaps we should just leave a
comment that we may increase the protection more than we should for
those readahead cases.

>
> I think we also accept this slight inaccuracy (i.e for pages in the
> readahead window that might not necessarily be needed) the in
> workingset refault handling behavior. Could you fact check me,
> Johannes?
>
>
> >
> > > are also incrementing when the pages are read from the zswap pool, which
> > > is inaccurate.
> >
> > I feel like this is the more important part. It should be the focus of
> > the commit log with more details (i.e. why is it wrong to increment
> > the zswap protection in this case).
>
> Yeah this is pretty important too :) Maybe I should make it clearer in
> the patch commit.
>
> >
> > Do we need a Fixes and cc:stable for this one? Maybe it can be moved
> > first to make backports easy.
>
> Hmm.
>
> *Technically*, this is broken in older versions of the shrinker as
> well, but it's more of an optimization than a bug that can crash the
> kernel, so I don't know if it qualifies for a Fixes tag?
>
> Another factor is, under the old scheme, this does not move the needle
> much - at least in my benchmarks. This is because the decaying
> behavior is so aggressive that incrementing the counter in a couple
> places does not matter, when it will be rapidly divided by half later.
> This fix only shows clear improvements when applied on top of the new
> second chance scheme.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion here, but it doesn't seem worth it to
> backport IMHO :)

I thought it's a simple change worth backporting, but if it doesn't
move the needle without the second chance algorithm then it's probably
not worth it.

I would still add the "Fixes" tag because technically the logic is
wrong without this patch, it increases the zswap protection when there
swapins from zswap which doesn't make much sense.