linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] mm/madvise: remove redundant mmap_lock operations from process

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20250204195343.16500-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Tue,  4 Feb 2025 11:53:43 -0800
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] mm/madvise: remove redundant mmap_lock operations from process_madvise()

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 17:51:45 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:47:24PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > * Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> [250131 12:31]:
> > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 05:30:58PM -0800, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > > Optimize redundant mmap lock operations from process_madvise() by
> > > > > directly doing the mmap locking first, and then the remaining works for
> > > > > all ranges in the loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if this might increase lock contention because now all of the
> > > > vector operations will hold the relevant mm lock without releasing after
> > > > each operation?
> > >
> > > That was exactly my concern. While afaict the numbers presented in v1
> > > are quite nice, this is ultimately a micro-benchmark, where no other
> > > unrelated threads are impacted by these new hold times.
> >
> > Indeed, I was also concerned about this scenario.
> >
> > But this method does have the added advantage of keeping the vma space
> > in the same state as it was expected during the initial call - although
> > the race does still exist on looking vs acting on the data.  This would
> > just remove the intermediate changes.
> >
> > >
> > > > Probably it's ok given limited size of iov,

I think so.  Also, users could adjust the batching size for their workloads.

> > > > but maybe in future we'd want
> > > > to set a limit on the ranges before we drop/reacquire lock?
> > >
> > > imo, this should best be done in the same patch/series. Maybe extend
> > > the benchmark to use IOV_MAX and find a sweet spot?
> >
> > Are you worried this is over-engineering for a problem that may never be
> > an issue, or is there a particular usecase you have in mind?
> >
> > It is probably worth investigating, and maybe a potential usecase would
> > help with the targeted sweet spot?

I think the sweet spot may depend on the workload and the advice type.  So
selection of the benchmark will be important.  Do you have a benchmark in your
mind?  My humble microbenchmark[1] does only single-thread usage performance
evaluation, so may not be appropriate to be used here.  I actually do the
evaluation with batching size up to the IOV_MAX (1024), but show no clear
evidence of the sweet spot.

> >
> 
> Keep in mind process_madvise() is not limited by IOV_MAX, which can be rather
> high, but rather UIO_FASTIOV, which is limited to 8 entries.

process_madvise() indeed have iovec array of UIO_FASTIOV size, namely iovstack.
But, if I understood the code correctly, iostack is used only for a fast path
that the user requested advicing less than UIO_FASTIOV regions.

I actually confirmed I can make the loop itrate 1024 times, using my
microbenchmark[1].  My step for the check was running the program with
'eval_pmadv $((4*1024*1024)) $((4*1024)) $((4*1024*1024))' command, and
counting the number of the itration of the vector_madvise() main loop using
printk().  Please let me know if I'm missing something.

> 
> (Some have been surprised by this limitation...!)
> 
> So I think at this point scaling isn't a huge issue, I raise it because in
> future we may want to increase this limit, at which point we should think about
> it, which is why I sort of hand-waved it away a bit.

I personally think this may still not be a huge issue, especially given the
fact that users can test and tune the limit.  But I'd like to hear more
opinions if available.

[1] https://github.com/sjp38/eval_proc_madvise/blob/master/eval_pmadv.c


Thanks,
SJ

> 
> > Thanks,
> > Liam
> >
>