linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm, hugetlb: remove hugepages_treat_as

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: <aOaR2gXBX_bOpG61@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:31:22 -0400
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, corbet@....net,
	muchun.song@...ux.dev, osalvador@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hannes@...xchg.org, laoar.shao@...il.com, brauner@...nel.org,
	mclapinski@...gle.com, joel.granados@...nel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexander00@...il.com>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm, hugetlb: remove hugepages_treat_as_movable
 sysctl"

On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 05:43:23PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 08.10.25 17:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 08-10-25 17:14:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 08.10.25 16:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > yes, I do agree. This is just muddying the semantic of the zone.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe what we really want is to have a configurable zone rather than a
> > > > very specific consumer of it instead. What do I mean by that? We clearly
> > > > have physically (DMA, DMA32) and usability (NORMAL, MOVABLE) constrained
> > > > zones. So rather than having a MOVABLE zone we can have a single zone
> > > > $FOO_NAME zone with configurable attributes - like allocation
> > > > constrains (kernel, user, movable, etc). Now that we can overlap zones
> > > > this should allow for quite a lot flexibility. Implementation wise this
> > > > would require some tricks as we have 2 zone types for potentially 3
> > > > different major usecases (kernel allocations, userspace reserved ranges
> > > > without movability and movable allocations). I haven't thought this
> > > > through completely and mostly throwing this as an idea (maybe won't
> > > > work). Does that make sense?
> > >

I'd also considered something between NORMAL and MOVABLE, something like
ZONE_NOKERNEL or ZONE_USER. But that seemed excessive.

> > That is why I called it user allocations because those are supposed to
> > be configured for userspace consumation and planned for that use. So you
> > would get pretty much a guarantee that no kernel allocations will fall
> > there.
> 
> What could end up on it that would not already end up on ZONE_MOVABLE? I
> guess long-term pinned pages, secretmem, guest_memfd, gigantic pages.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> I'm not quite clear yet on the use case, though. If all the user allocations
> end up fragmenting the memory, there is also not a lot of benefit to be had
> from that zone long term.
>

The only real use case i've seen is exactly: 
 - Don't want random GFP_KERNEL to land there
 - Might want it to be pinnable

I think that covers what you've described above.

But adding an entire zone felt a bit heavy handed.  Allowing gigantic in
movable seemed less - immediately - offensive.

~Gregory