From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
will@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com,
bodeddub@amazon.com, osalvador@suse.de, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
rientjes@google.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
duanxiongchun@bytedance.com, fam.zheng@bytedance.com,
smuchun@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: mm: hugetlb: Enable HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP for arm64
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 16:03:33 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <836e2f84-f8e1-5303-26c2-eedb8d78c218@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220331065640.5777-2-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
On 3/31/22 12:26, Muchun Song wrote:
> The feature of minimizing overhead of struct page associated with each
> HugeTLB page aims to free its vmemmap pages (used as struct page) to
> save memory, where is ~14GB/16GB per 1TB HugeTLB pages (2MB/1GB type).
> In short, when a HugeTLB page is allocated or freed, the vmemmap array
> representing the range associated with the page will need to be remapped.
> When a page is allocated, vmemmap pages are freed after remapping.
> When a page is freed, previously discarded vmemmap pages must be
> allocated before remapping. More implementations and details can be
> found here [1].
>
> The infrastructure of freeing vmemmap pages associated with each HugeTLB
> page is already there, we can easily enable HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP
> for arm64, the only thing to be fixed is flush_dcache_page() .
>
> flush_dcache_page() need to be adapted to operate on the head page's
> flags since the tail vmemmap pages are mapped with read-only after the
> feature is enabled (clear operation is not permitted).
>
> There was some discussions about this in the thread [2], but there was
> no conclusion in the end. And I copied the concern proposed by Anshuman
> to here and explain why those concern is superfluous. It is safe to
> enable it for x86_64 as well as arm64.
>
> 1st concern:
> '''
> But what happens when a hot remove section's vmemmap area (which is
> being teared down) is nearby another vmemmap area which is either created
> or being destroyed for HugeTLB alloc/free purpose. As you mentioned
> HugeTLB pages inside the hot remove section might be safe. But what about
> other HugeTLB areas whose vmemmap area shares page table entries with
> vmemmap entries for a section being hot removed ? Massive HugeTLB alloc
> /use/free test cycle using memory just adjacent to a memory hotplug area,
> which is always added and removed periodically, should be able to expose
> this problem.
> '''
>
> Answer: At the time memory is removed, all HugeTLB pages either have been
> migrated away or dissolved. So there is no race between memory hot remove
> and free_huge_page_vmemmap(). Therefore, HugeTLB pages inside the hot
> remove section is safe. Let's talk your question "what about other
> HugeTLB areas whose vmemmap area shares page table entries with vmemmap
> entries for a section being hot removed ?", the question is not
> established. The minimal granularity size of hotplug memory 128MB (on
> arm64, 4k base page), any HugeTLB smaller than 128MB is within a section,
> then, there is no share PTE page tables between HugeTLB in this section
> and ones in other sections and a HugeTLB page could not cross two
> sections. In this case, the section cannot be freed. Any HugeTLB bigger
> than 128MB (section size) whose vmemmap pages is an integer multiple of
> 2MB (PMD-mapped). As long as:
>
> 1) HugeTLBs are naturally aligned, power-of-two sizes
> 2) The HugeTLB size >= the section size
> 3) The HugeTLB size >= the vmemmap leaf mapping size
>
> Then a HugeTLB will not share any leaf page table entries with *anything
> else*, but will share intermediate entries. In this case, at the time memory
> is removed, all HugeTLB pages either have been migrated away or dissolved.
> So there is also no race between memory hot remove and
> free_huge_page_vmemmap().
>
> 2nd concern:
> '''
> differently, not sure if ptdump would require any synchronization.
>
> Dumping an wrong value is probably okay but crashing because a page table
> entry is being freed after ptdump acquired the pointer is bad. On arm64,
> ptdump() is protected against hotremove via [get|put]_online_mems().
> '''
>
> Answer: The ptdump should be fine since vmemmap_remap_free() only exchanges
> PTEs or splits the PMD entry (which means allocating a PTE page table). Both
> operations do not free any page tables (PTE), so ptdump cannot run into a
> UAF on any page tables. The worst case is just dumping an wrong value.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210510030027.56044-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210518091826.36937-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> ---
> v4:
> - Introduce ARCH_WANT_HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP (implemented in the previous
> patch) to enable this feature for arm64.
>
> v3:
> - Rework patch's subject.
> - Clarify the feature of HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP is already there in the
> current code and easyly be enabled for arm64 into commit log.
> - Add hugetlb_free_vmemmap_enabled() check into flush_dcache_page().
>
> Thanks for Barry's suggestions.
>
> v2:
> - Update commit message (Mark Rutland).
> - Fix flush_dcache_page().
>
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm64/mm/flush.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index c842878f8133..37f72e3a75d0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ config ARM64
> select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_TOPDOWN_MMAP_LAYOUT
> select ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS
> select ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE if ARM64_4K_PAGES || (ARM64_16K_PAGES && !ARM64_VA_BITS_36)
> + select ARCH_WANT_HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP
> select ARCH_WANT_LD_ORPHAN_WARN
> select ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR
> select ARCH_HAS_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/flush.c b/arch/arm64/mm/flush.c
> index 2aaf950b906c..c67c1ca856c2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/flush.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/flush.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__sync_icache_dcache);
> */
> void flush_dcache_page(struct page *page)
> {
> + /*
> + * Only the head page's flags of HugeTLB can be cleared since the tail
> + * vmemmap pages associated with each HugeTLB page are mapped with
> + * read-only when CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP is enabled (more
> + * details can refer to vmemmap_remap_pte()). Although
> + * __sync_icache_dcache() only set PG_dcache_clean flag on the head
> + * page struct, some tail page structs still can be seen the flag is
> + * set since the head vmemmap page frame is reused (more details can
> + * refer to the comments above page_fixed_fake_head()).
> + */
> + if (hugetlb_free_vmemmap_enabled() && PageHuge(page))
> + page = compound_head(page);
> +
> if (test_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags))
> clear_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags);
> }
With restructuring above code comment inside flush_dcache_page(),
Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-13 10:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-31 6:56 [PATCH v4 1/2] mm: hugetlb_vmemmap: introduce ARCH_WANT_HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP Muchun Song
2022-03-31 6:56 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: mm: hugetlb: Enable HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP for arm64 Muchun Song
2022-03-31 22:31 ` Barry Song
2022-04-04 9:26 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-04-04 12:01 ` Muchun Song
2022-04-05 3:34 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-04-05 3:49 ` Muchun Song
2022-04-05 4:45 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-04-05 8:38 ` Muchun Song
2022-04-11 9:17 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-04-11 10:40 ` Muchun Song
2022-04-11 10:12 ` Anshuman Khandual
2022-04-11 11:55 ` Muchun Song
2022-04-13 10:33 ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
2022-04-13 14:59 ` Muchun Song
2022-03-31 8:42 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] mm: hugetlb_vmemmap: introduce ARCH_WANT_HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP David Hildenbrand
2022-03-31 8:48 ` Muchun Song
2022-03-31 8:50 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-03-31 8:53 ` Muchun Song
2022-03-31 22:19 ` Barry Song
2022-04-04 9:05 ` Anshuman Khandual
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=836e2f84-f8e1-5303-26c2-eedb8d78c218@arm.com \
--to=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bodeddub@amazon.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=duanxiongchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=fam.zheng@bytedance.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=smuchun@gmail.com \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox