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: <aOdSvriKRoCR5IUs@tiehlicka>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 08:14:22 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.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 08-10-25 12:31:22, Gregory Price wrote:
> 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.

The question is whether we need a full zone for that or we can control
those allocation constrains on per memory block bases to override
otherwise default. So it wouldn't be MOVABLE but rather something like
USER zone.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs