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: <tencent_52B8009E65148BE7B93C42479E6E642C0409@qq.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:45:01 +0800
From: Junjie Fu <fujunjie1@...com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com, gourry@...rry.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix decision-making issues for memory
 migration during NUMA balancing

On November 25, 2024 at 19:33, 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
> 

I apologize for the oversight when reviewing the code regarding the 
process of setting only the first node in the nodemask for the 
MPOL_PREFERRED memory policy. After reviewing the mpol_new_preferred 
function, I realized that when setting the memory policy, only the first 
node from the user's nodemask is copied into the corresponding memory 
policy instance's nodemask, as shown in the following code:

static int mpol_new_preferred(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t 
*nodes)
{
     if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
         return -EINVAL;

     nodes_clear(pol->nodes);
     node_set(first_node(*nodes), pol->nodes); //only the first node to 
be set
     return 0;
}

Due to my previous oversight, I mistakenly assumed that multiple nodes 
could be set in pol->nodes, leading to my incorrect understanding. 
Therefore, the original code is correct. Thank you all for your responses.