linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Add ARCH_FORCE_PAGE_BLOCK

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: <CAJDx_riW0B6wQb0U3EG5oEevorUaq0AH20zcJJBgq4yjFTTxvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 12:27:31 -0700
From: Juan Yescas <jyescas@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, tjmercier@...gle.com, 
	isaacmanjarres@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com, 
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, 
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, 
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Add ARCH_FORCE_PAGE_BLOCK_ORDER to select page block order

On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 11:38 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Juan Yescas wrote:
> > Problem: On large page size configurations (16KiB, 64KiB), the CMA
> > alignment requirement (CMA_MIN_ALIGNMENT_BYTES) increases considerably,
> > and this causes the CMA reservations to be larger than necessary.
> > This means that system will have less available MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE and
> > MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE page blocks since MIGRATE_CMA can't fallback to them.
> >
> > The CMA_MIN_ALIGNMENT_BYTES increases because it depends on
> > MAX_PAGE_ORDER which depends on ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER. The value of
> > ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER increases on 16k and 64k kernels.
>
> Sure, but why would any architecture *NOT* want to set this?

You are right, not all the architectures support large page sizes and don't have
the CMA alignment issues that arm64 with 16k and 64k page sizes have.
This change only affects arm64 architectures.

> This seems like you're making each architecture bump into the problem
> by itself, when the real problem is that the CMA people never thought
> about this and should have come up with better defaults.

This change will only affect arm64 architectures. By default,
ARCH_FORCE_PAGE_BLOCK_ORDER
will have the same value that ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER (This is the current
behaviour). If the kernel is configured with large page sizes for
arm64, the user
can decide to change the pageblock_order or leave the default. It is
an opt-in feature
for arm64.

Thanks
Juan