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

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

Message-ID: <4193fe50-dddb-495a-bc8f-e86c5e98fb1a@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 18:04:39 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Keir Fraser <keirf@...gle.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
 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>,
 Ge Yang <yangge1116@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: Drain batched mlock folio processing before
 attempting migration

On 25.08.25 03:25, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025, Will Deacon wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Many thanks, Will, for the precisely relevant traces (in which,
> by the way, mapcount=0 really means _mapcount=0 hence mapcount=1).
> 
> Yes, those do indeed illustrate a case which my suggested
> (folio_test_mlocked(folio) && !folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> failed to cover.  Very helpful to have an example of that.
> 
> And many thanks, David, for your reminder of commit 33dfe9204f29
> ("mm/gup: clear the LRU flag of a page before adding to LRU batch").
> 
> Yes, I strongly agree with your suggestion that the mlock batch
> be brought into line with its change to the ordinary LRU batches,
> and agree that doing so will be likely to solve Will's issue
> (and similar cases elsewhere, without needing to modify them).
> 
> Now I just have to cool my head and get back down into those
> mlock batches.  I am fearful that making a change there to suit
> this case will turn out later to break another case (and I just
> won't have time to redevelop as thorough a grasp of the races as
> I had back then).  But if we're lucky, applying that "one batch
> at a time" rule will actually make it all more comprehensible.
> 
> (I so wish we had spare room in struct page to keep the address
> of that one batch entry, or the CPU to which that one batch
> belongs: then, although that wouldn't eliminate all uses of
> lru_add_drain_all(), it would allow us to efficiently extract
> a target page from its LRU batch without a remote drain.)

I like the idea of identifying what exactly to drain, especially
regarding remote LRU draining.

With separately allocated folios we later might have that space, but it 
could mean growing the folio size, so it depends on other factors (and 
also how to store that information).

For now, I don't think we have any space to store this ... briefly 
thought about using folio->lru for that purpose, but the whole reason 
for batching is to no mess with folio->lru modifications but instead to 
... defer batch them :)


-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb