linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: Drain batched mlock folio processing before attempting migration

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: <aKM5S4oQYmRIbT3j@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 15:31:39 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Keir Fraser <keirf@...gle.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
	Frederick Mayle <fmayle@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: Drain batched mlock folio processing before
 attempting migration

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 02:31:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > I think replace the folio_test_mlocked(folio) part of it by
> > (folio_test_mlocked(folio) && !folio_test_unevictable(folio)).
> > That should reduce the extra calls to a much more reasonable
> > number, while still solving your issue.
> 
> Alas, I fear that the folio may be unevictable by this point (which
> seems to coincide with the readahead fault adding it to the LRU above)
> but I can try it out.

I gave this a spin but I still see failures with this change.

Will