| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20250311210023.85435-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:00:23 -0700
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <howlett@...il.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
kernel-team@...a.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] mm/madvise: let madvise_{dontneed,free}_single_vma() caller batches tlb flushes
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:07:25 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
> Super super UBER nitty but... pretty sure the subject here should be <= 75
> chars right? :P
I believe that's not a hard limit, but I will try to make it shorter in the
next spin.
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:23:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > Update madvise_dontneed_single_vma() and madvise_free_single_vma()
> > functions so that the caller can pass an mmu_gather object that should
> > be initialized and will be finished outside, for batched tlb flushes.
> > Also modify their internal code to support such usage by skipping the
> > initialization and finishing of self-allocated mmu_gather object if it
> > received a valid mmu_gather object.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > mm/internal.h | 3 +++
> > mm/madvise.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > mm/memory.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> > index 0caa64dc2cb7..ce7fb2383f65 100644
> > --- a/mm/internal.h
> > +++ b/mm/internal.h
> > @@ -438,6 +438,9 @@ void unmap_page_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> > struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> > struct zap_details *details);
> > +void unmap_vma_single(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
> > + struct zap_details *details);
> > int folio_unmap_invalidate(struct address_space *mapping, struct folio *folio,
> > gfp_t gfp);
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> > index ba2a78795207..d7ea71c6422c 100644
> > --- a/mm/madvise.c
> > +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> > @@ -794,12 +794,19 @@ static const struct mm_walk_ops madvise_free_walk_ops = {
> > .walk_lock = PGWALK_RDLOCK,
> > };
> >
> > -static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > - unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end_addr)
> > +static int madvise_free_single_vma(
> > + struct mmu_gather *caller_tlb, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>
> I find this interface horrible, and super confusing. It's not clear at all
> what's going on here.
>
> Why not use your new helper struct to add a field you can thread through
> here?
I will do so in the next spin.
>
> > + unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end_addr)
> > {
> > struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > struct mmu_notifier_range range;
> > - struct mmu_gather tlb;
> > + struct mmu_gather self_tlb;
> > + struct mmu_gather *tlb;
> > +
> > + if (caller_tlb)
> > + tlb = caller_tlb;
> > + else
> > + tlb = &self_tlb;
> >
> > /* MADV_FREE works for only anon vma at the moment */
> > if (!vma_is_anonymous(vma))
> > @@ -815,16 +822,18 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > range.start, range.end);
> >
> > lru_add_drain();
> > - tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm);
> > + if (!caller_tlb)
> > + tlb_gather_mmu(tlb, mm);
>
> Yeah really don't like this.
>
> Ideally we'd abstract the mmu_gather struct to the helper struct (which I
> see you do in a subsequent patch anyway) would be ideal if you could find a
> way to make that work.
>
> But if not, then:
>
> if (behavior->batched_tlb)
> tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm);
>
> etc. etc.
>
> Would work better.
Agreed.
>
> > update_hiwater_rss(mm);
> >
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
> > - tlb_start_vma(&tlb, vma);
> > + tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma);
>
> Also not a fan of making tlb refer to a pointer now when before it
> didn't... I mean that's more of a nit and maybe unavoidable, but still!
>
> I mean yeah ok this is probably unavoidable, ignore.
Yeah... I also find no good way to make this very cleaner without the followup
cleanup for now.
>
> > walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, range.start, range.end,
> > - &madvise_free_walk_ops, &tlb);
> > - tlb_end_vma(&tlb, vma);
> > + &madvise_free_walk_ops, tlb);
> > + tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma);
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
> > - tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb);
> > + if (!caller_tlb)
> > + tlb_finish_mmu(tlb);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -848,7 +857,8 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > * An interface that causes the system to free clean pages and flush
> > * dirty pages is already available as msync(MS_INVALIDATE).
> > */
> > -static long madvise_dontneed_single_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > +static long madvise_dontneed_single_vma(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> > {
> > struct zap_details details = {
> > @@ -856,7 +866,10 @@ static long madvise_dontneed_single_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > .even_cows = true,
> > };
> >
> > - zap_page_range_single(vma, start, end - start, &details);
> > + if (!tlb)
> > + zap_page_range_single(vma, start, end - start, &details);
>
> Please don't put the negation case first, it's confusing. Swap them!
Ok, I will do so.
>
>
> > + else
> > + unmap_vma_single(tlb, vma, start, end - start, &details);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -951,9 +964,9 @@ static long madvise_dontneed_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > }
> >
> > if (behavior == MADV_DONTNEED || behavior == MADV_DONTNEED_LOCKED)
> > - return madvise_dontneed_single_vma(vma, start, end);
> > + return madvise_dontneed_single_vma(NULL, vma, start, end);
> > else if (behavior == MADV_FREE)
> > - return madvise_free_single_vma(vma, start, end);
> > + return madvise_free_single_vma(NULL, vma, start, end);
>
> Not to labour the point, but this is also horrid, passing a mystery NULL
> parameter first...
Agreed again. I will just pass the madvise_behavior struct in the next spin.
>
> > else
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 88c478e2ed1a..3256b9713cbd 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -1995,9 +1995,19 @@ void unmap_vmas(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct ma_state *mas,
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
> > }
> >
> > -static void unmap_vma_single(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> > - struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> > - unsigned long size, struct zap_details *details)
> > +/**
> > + * unmap_vma_single - remove user pages in a given range
> > + * @tlb: pointer to the caller's struct mmu_gather
> > + * @vma: vm_area_struct holding the applicable pages
> > + * @address: starting address of the pages
> > + * @size: number of bytes to remove
> > + * @details: details of shared cache invalidation
> > + *
> > + * @tlb shouldn't be NULL. The range must fit into one VMA.
>
> Can we add some VM_WARN_ON[_ONCE]()'s for these conditions please?
Nice suggestion, I will do so.
>
> Thanks for documenting!
Kudos to Shakeel, who suggested this kerneldoc comment :)
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists