linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Occasionally relinquish zone lock in batch freeing

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250819151846.2000539-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:18:45 -0700
From: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...le.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
	Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Occasionally relinquish zone lock in batch freeing

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 17:13:40 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for your time & feedback, as always!

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:58:03 -0700 Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > While testing workloads with high sustained memory pressure on large machines
> > (1TB memory, 316 CPUs), we saw an unexpectedly high number of softlockups.
> > Further investigation showed that the lock in free_pcppages_bulk was being held
> > for a long time, even being held while 2k+ pages were being freed.
> > 
> > Instead of holding the lock for the entirety of the freeing, check to see if
> > the zone lock is contended every pcp->batch pages. If there is contention,
> > relinquish the lock so that other processors have a change to grab the lock
> > and perform critical work.
> > 
> > In our fleet,
> 
> who is "our"?

Sorry for the ambiguity -- I work for Meta, so I was referring to their
machines. I'll make this clearer in the next version.

> > @@ -1267,12 +1270,22 @@ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
> >  
> >  			/* must delete to avoid corrupting pcp list */
> >  			list_del(&page->pcp_list);
> > +			batch -= nr_pages;
> >  			count -= nr_pages;
> >  			pcp->count -= nr_pages;
> >  
> >  			__free_one_page(page, pfn, zone, order, mt, FPI_NONE);
> >  			trace_mm_page_pcpu_drain(page, order, mt);
> > -		} while (count > 0 && !list_empty(list));
> > +		} while (batch > 0 && !list_empty(list));
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Prevent starving the lock for other users; every pcp->batch
> > +		 * pages freed, relinquish the zone lock if it is contended.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (count && spin_is_contended(&zone->lock)) {
> > +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> > +			spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> > +		}
> >  	}
> 
> Pretty this isn't.
> 
> Sigh, we do so much stuff here and in __free_one_page().
> 
> What sort of guarantee do we have that the contending task will be able
> to get in and grab the spinlock in that tiny time window?

Thank you for pointing this out -- I don't think there is any guarantee.
Kiryl suggested that I put a cond_resched() here, in order to guarantee that
the contending tasks will be able to grab the spinlock. I think that's a great
idea -- I'll make this change in v2.

Thank you for your feedback, have a great day!
Joshua