linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix decision-making issues for memory migration during NUMA balancing

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: <Z0SgdhMOnpup1MdY@PC2K9PVX.TheFacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:06:14 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Junjie Fu <fujunjie1@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dave.hansen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix decision-making issues for memory
 migration during NUMA balancing

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 12:33:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 24-11-24 03:09:35, Junjie Fu wrote:
> > When handling a page fault caused by NUMA balancing (do_numa_page), it is
> > necessary to decide whether to migrate the current page to another node or
> > keep it on its current node. For pages with the MPOL_PREFERRED memory
> > policy, it is sufficient to check whether the first node set in the
> > nodemask is the same as the node where the page is currently located. If
> > this is the case, the page should remain in its current state. Otherwise,
> > migration to another node should be attempted.
> > 
> > Because the definition of MPOL_PREFERRED is as follows: "This mode sets the
> > preferred node for allocation. The kernel will try to allocate pages from
> > this node first and fall back to nearby nodes if the preferred node is low
> > on free memory. If the nodemask specifies more than one node ID, the first
> > node in the mask will be selected as the preferred node."
> > 
> > Thus, if the node where the current page resides is not the first node in
> > the nodemask, it is not the PREFERRED node, and memory migration can be
> > attempted.
> > 
> > However, in the original code, the check only verifies whether the current
> > node exists in the nodemask (which may or may not be the first node in the
> > mask). This could lead to a scenario where, if the current node is not the
> > first node in the nodemask, the code incorrectly decides not to attempt
> > migration to other nodes.
> > 
> > This behavior is clearly incorrect. If the target node for migration and
> > the page's current NUMA node are both within the nodemask but neither is
> > the first node, they should be treated with the same priority, and
> > migration attempts should proceed.
> 
> The code is clearly confusing but is there any actual problem to be
> solved? IIRC although we do keep nodemask for MPOL_PREFERRED
> policy we do not allow to set more than a single node to be set there.
> Have a look at mpol_new_preferred
>

concur here - the proposed patch doesn't actually change any behavior
(or it shouldn, at least).

Is there a migration error being observed that this patch fixes, or is
this just an `observational fix`?

~Gregory