From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc: 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,
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 22:59:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YlblX4Rp0ZO3f8L8@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <836e2f84-f8e1-5303-26c2-eedb8d78c218@arm.com>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:03:33PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> 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>
>
Thanks for your review. Will update soon.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-13 14:59 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
2022-04-13 14:59 ` Muchun Song [this message]
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=YlblX4Rp0ZO3f8L8@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net \
--to=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--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=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