lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] mm/cma: manage the memory of the CMA area by using the ZONE_MOVABLE
From
Date
On 08/31/2017 03:40 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:16:18AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 08/24/2017 08:36 AM, js1304@gmail.com wrote:
>>> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
>>>
>>> 0. History
>>>
>>> This patchset is the follow-up of the discussion about the
>>> "Introduce ZONE_CMA (v7)" [1]. Please reference it if more information
>>> is needed.
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> [1]: lkml.kernel.org/r/1491880640-9944-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com
>>> [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/15/623
>>> [3]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg100562.html
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>>
>> The previous version has introduced ZONE_CMA, so I would think switching
>> to ZONE_MOVABLE is enough to drop previous reviews. Perhaps most of the
>> code involved is basically the same, though?
>
> Yes, most of the code involved is the same. I considered to drop
> previous review tags but most of the code and concept is the same so I
> decide to keep review tags. I should mention it in cover-letter but I
> forgot to mention it. Sorry about that.
>
>> Anyway I checked the current patch and did some basic tests with qemu,
>> so you can keep my ack.
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>> BTW, if we dropped NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES, could we also drop MIGRATE_CMA and
>> related hooks? Is that counter really that useful as it works right now?
>> It will decrease both by CMA allocations (which has to be explicitly
>> freed) and by movable allocations (which can be migrated). What if only
>> CMA alloc/release touched it?
>
> I think that NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES would not be as useful as previous. We
> can remove it.
>
> However, removing MIGRATE_CMA has a problem. There is an usecase to
> check if the page comes from the CMA area or not. See
> check_page_span() in mm/usercopy.c. I can implement it differently by
> iterating whole CMA area and finding the match, but I'm not sure it's
> performance effect. I guess that it would be marginal.

+CC Kees Cook

Hmm, seems like this check is to make sure we don't copy from/to parts
of kernel memory we're not supposed to? Then I believe checking that
pages are in ZONE_MOVABLE should then give the same guarantees as
MIGRATE_CMA.

BTW the comment says "Reject if range is entirely either Reserved or
CMA" but the code does the opposite thing. I assume the comment is wrong?

> Anyway, I'd like not to cause any side-effect now. After patches are
> settle down on mainline, I will try to remove them as you suggested.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-31 13:36    [W:0.063 / U:6.320 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site