linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 4/6] mm/page_alloc: sort out the alloc_contig

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: <Z1ApKEC-_OPPreun@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:04:24 +0100
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 4/6] mm/page_alloc: sort out the
 alloc_contig_range() gfp flags mess

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:28:39AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.12.24 10:15, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:03:28AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 12/4/24 09:59, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 08:19:02PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > It was always set using "GFP_USER | __GFP_MOVABLE | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL",
> > > > > and I removed the same flag combination in #2 from memory offline code, and
> > > > > we do have the exact same thing in do_migrate_range() in
> > > > > mm/memory_hotplug.c.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We should investigate if__GFP_HARDWALL is the right thing to use here, and
> > > > > if we can get rid of that by switching to GFP_KERNEL in all these places.
> > > > 
> > > > Why would not we want __GFP_HARDWALL set?
> > > > Without it, we could potentially migrate the page to a node which is not
> > > > part of the cpuset of the task that originally allocated it, thus violating the
> > > > policy? Is not that a problem?
> > > 
> > > The task doing the alloc_contig_range() will likely not be the same task as
> > > the one that originally allocated the page, so its policy would be
> > > different, no? So even with __GFP_HARDWALL we might be already migrating
> > > outside the original tasks's constraint? Am I missing something?
> > 
> > Yes, that is right, I thought we derive the policy from the old page
> > somehow when migrating it, but reading the code does not seem to be the
> > case.
> > 
> > Looking at prepare_alloc_pages(), if !ac->nodemask, which would be the
> > case here, we would get the policy from the current task
> > (alloc_contig_range()) when cpusets are enabled.
> > 
> > So yes, I am a bit puzzled why __GFP_HARDWALL was chosen in the first
> > place.
> 
> I suspect because "GFP_USER" felt like the appropriate thing to do.

Looking back at when the whole contiguous allocator patchset was posted,
it seems that it kinda copied what memory-offline code was doing, which
was migrating pages with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (hotremove_migrate_alloc()).

Then, the HIGHMEM modifier was dropped due to HIGHMEM restrictions on
some systems, ending up with GFP_USER.


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs