| 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: <CAGsJ_4xPEqXozZCy623LzD6Y01cM9XrbrrYAbddXnUj2eZ8O2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 22:49:57 +1200
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, chrisl@...nel.org, kasong@...cent.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, ryan.roberts@....com, v-songbaohua@...o.com,
x86@...nel.org, ying.huang@...el.com, zhengtangquan@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] mm: Support batched unmap for lazyfree large
folios during reclamation
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:43 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 25.06.25 12:38, Barry Song wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >>> index fb63d9256f09..241d55a92a47 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >>> @@ -1847,12 +1847,25 @@ void folio_remove_rmap_pud(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
> >>>
> >>> /* We support batch unmapping of PTEs for lazyfree large folios */
> >>> static inline bool can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(unsigned long addr,
> >>> - struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep)
> >>> + struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep,
> >>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >>> {
> >>> const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> >>> + unsigned long next_pmd, vma_end, end_addr;
> >>> int max_nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >>> pte_t pte = ptep_get(ptep);
> >>>
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Limit the batch scan within a single VMA and within a single
> >>> + * page table.
> >>> + */
> >>> + vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> >>> + next_pmd = ALIGN(addr + 1, PMD_SIZE);
> >>> + end_addr = addr + (unsigned long)max_nr * PAGE_SIZE;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (end_addr > min(next_pmd, vma_end))
> >>> + return false;
> >>
> >> May I suggest that we clean all that up as we fix it?
> >>
> >> Maybe something like this:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >> index 3b74bb19c11dd..11fbddc6ad8d6 100644
> >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >> @@ -1845,23 +1845,38 @@ void folio_remove_rmap_pud(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >>
> >> -/* We support batch unmapping of PTEs for lazyfree large folios */
> >> -static inline bool can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(unsigned long addr,
> >> - struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep)
> >> +static inline unsigned int folio_unmap_pte_batch(struct folio *folio,
> >> + struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw, enum ttu_flags flags,
> >> + pte_t pte)
> >> {
> >> const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> >> - int max_nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >> - pte_t pte = ptep_get(ptep);
> >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = pvmw->vma;
> >> + unsigned long end_addr, addr = pvmw->address;
> >> + unsigned int max_nr;
> >> +
> >> + if (flags & TTU_HWPOISON)
> >> + return 1;
> >> + if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> >> + return 1;
> >> +
> >> + /* We may only batch within a single VMA and a single page table. */
> >> + end_addr = min_t(unsigned long, ALIGN(addr + 1, PMD_SIZE), vma->vm_end);
> >
> > Is this pmd_addr_end()?
> >
>
> Yes, that could be reused as well here.
>
> >> + max_nr = (end_addr - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>
> >> + /* We only support lazyfree batching for now ... */
> >> if (!folio_test_anon(folio) || folio_test_swapbacked(folio))
> >> - return false;
> >> + return 1;
> >> if (pte_unused(pte))
> >> - return false;
> >> - if (pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio))
> >> - return false;
> >> + return 1;
> >> + /* ... where we must be able to batch the whole folio. */
> >> + if (pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio) || max_nr != folio_nr_pages(folio))
> >> + return 1;
> >> + max_nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pvmw->pte, pte, max_nr, fpb_flags,
> >> + NULL, NULL, NULL);
> >>
> >> - return folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, ptep, pte, max_nr, fpb_flags, NULL,
> >> - NULL, NULL) == max_nr;
> >> + if (max_nr != folio_nr_pages(folio))
> >> + return 1;
> >> + return max_nr;
> >> }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> @@ -2024,9 +2039,7 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> if (pte_dirty(pteval))
> >> folio_mark_dirty(folio);
> >> } else if (likely(pte_present(pteval))) {
> >> - if (folio_test_large(folio) && !(flags & TTU_HWPOISON) &&
> >> - can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(address, folio, pvmw.pte))
> >> - nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >> + nr_pages = folio_unmap_pte_batch(folio, &pvmw, flags, pteval);
> >> end_addr = address + nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
> >> flush_cache_range(vma, address, end_addr);
> >>
> >>
> >> Note that I don't quite understand why we have to batch the whole thing or fallback to
> >> individual pages. Why can't we perform other batches that span only some PTEs? What's special
> >> about 1 PTE vs. 2 PTEs vs. all PTEs?
> >>
> >>
> >> Can someone enlighten me why that is required?
> >
> > It's probably not a strict requirement — I thought cases where the
> > count is greater than 1 but less than nr_pages might not provide much
> > practical benefit, except perhaps in very rare edge cases, since
> > madv_free() already calls split_folio().
>
> Okay, but it makes the code more complicated. If there is no reason to
> prevent the batching, we should drop it.
It's not necessarily more complex, since page_vma_mapped_walk() still
has to check each PTE individually and can't skip ahead based on nr.
With nr_pages batched, we can exit the loop early in one go.
Thanks
Barry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists