linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] zswap: fix placement inversion in memory tiering systems

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: <CAKEwX=OVRaUcD8A4HkCZWisNPH+Q9VzOGMJeHnOi40AnHsjjjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:13:20 -0700
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, 
	chengming.zhou@...ux.dev, sj@...nel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gourry@...rry.net, willy@...radead.org, 
	ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, 
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, minchan@...nel.org, 
	senozhatsky@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] zswap: fix placement inversion in memory tiering systems

On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:53 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> March 29, 2025 at 1:02 PM, "Nhat Pham" <nphamcs@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Currently, systems with CXL-based memory tiering can encounter the
> > following inversion with zswap: the coldest pages demoted to the CXL
> > tier can return to the high tier when they are zswapped out,
> > creating memory pressure on the high tier.
> > This happens because zsmalloc, zswap's backend memory allocator, does
> > not enforce any memory policy. If the task reclaiming memory follows
> > the local-first policy for example, the memory requested for zswap can
> > be served by the upper tier, leading to the aformentioned inversion.
> > This RFC fixes this inversion by adding a new memory allocation mode
> > for zswap (exposed through a zswap sysfs knob), intended for
> > hosts with CXL, where the memory for the compressed object is requested
> > preferentially from the same node that the original page resides on.
>
> I didn't look too closely, but why not just prefer the same node by default? Why is a knob needed?

Good question, yeah the knob is to maintain the old behavior :) It
might not be optimal, or even advisable, for all set up.

For hosts with node-based memory tiering, then yeah it's a good idea
in general, but I don't quite know how to have information about that
from the kernel's perspective.

>
> Or maybe if there's a way to tell the "tier" of the node we can prefer to allocate from the same "tier"?

Is there an abstraction of the "tier" that we can use here?