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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20250821010307.5142-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:03:06 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Occasionally relinquish zone lock in batch freeing

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:13:07 -0700 Joshua Hahn wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:29:00 +0800 Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:58:03 -0700 Joshua Hahn 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.
> > > 
> > Instead of the unlock/lock game, simply return with the rest left to workqueue
> > in case of lock contension. But workqueue is still unable to kill soft lockup
> > if the number of contending CPUs is large enough.
> 
> Thank you for the idea. One concern that I have is that sometimes, we do expect
> free_pcppages_bulk to actually free all of the pages that it has promised to
> do. One example is when it is called from drain_zone_pages. Of course, we can
> have a while loop that would call free_pcppages_bulk until it returns 0, but
> I think that would be reduced to unlocking / locking over and over again.
> 
In the case of drain_zone_pages(), I think adding something like the pcpu_drain_mutex
to the path updating zone counters is a cure.