linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm-new 1/3] mm/khugepaged: skip unsuitable VMAs earlier in khugepaged_scan_mm

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

Message-ID: <70da1948-b0f2-f54b-e0eb-ff901e007ccc@google.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 23:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
    david@...hat.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, ziy@...dia.com, 
    baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, npache@...hat.com, 
    ryan.roberts@....com, dev.jain@....com, baohua@...nel.org, 
    ioworker0@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-new 1/3] mm/khugepaged: skip unsuitable VMAs earlier
 in khugepaged_scan_mm_slot()

On Tue, 16 Sep 2025, Lance Yang wrote:

> Hi Hugh,
> 
> Thanks for taking a look and for raising this important point!
> 
> On 2025/9/16 13:32, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Sep 2025, Lance Yang wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
> >>
> >> Let's skip unsuitable VMAs early in the khugepaged scan; specifically,
> >> mlocked VMAs should not be touched.
> > 
> > Why?  That's a change in behaviour, isn't it?
> > 
> > I'm aware that hugepage collapse on an mlocked VMA can insert a fault
> > latency, not universally welcome; but I've not seen discussion, let
> > alone agreement, that current behaviour should be changed.
> > Somewhere in yet-to-be-read mail?  Please give us a link.
> > 
> > Hugh
> 
> You're right, this is indeed a change in behaviour. But it's specifically
> for khugepaged.
> 
> Users of mlock() expect low and predictable latency. THP collapse is a
> heavy operation that introduces exactly the kind of unpredictable delays
> they want to avoid. It has to unmap PTEs, copy data from the small folios
> to a new THP, and then remap the THP back to the PMD ;)
> 
> IMO, that change is acceptable because THP is generally transparent to
> users, and khugepaged does not guarantee when THP collapse or split will
> happen.

I disagree.  Many of those who have khugepaged enabled would prefer
it to give them hugepages, even or especially on mlocked areas.

If you make that change, it must be guarded by a sysfs or sysctl tuning.

Perhaps it could share the sysctl_compact_unevictable_allowed tuning
(I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad idea: opinions will differ).

Hugh

> 
> Well, we don't have a discussion on that, just something I noticed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lance