lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] mm, compaction: Skip all non-migratable pages during scan
On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 04:49:52PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 5/26/23 20:18, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 07:11:05PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > So any user with 1024 processes can fragment physical memory? :/
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I'd like to minimize the usage of folio_maybe_dma_pinned().
> > >
> > > I was actually thinking that we should minimize any more cases of
> > > fragile mapcount and refcount comparison, which then leads to
> > > Matthew's approach here!
> >
> > I was wondering if we shouldn't make folio_maybe_dma_pinned() a little
> > more accurate. eg:
> >
> > if (folio_test_large(folio))
> > return atomic_read(&folio->_pincount) > 0;
> > return (unsigned)(folio_ref_count(folio) - folio_mapcount(folio)) >=
> > GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS;
>
> I'm trying to figure out what might be wrong with that, but it seems
> OK. We must have talked about this earlier, but I recall vaguely that
> there was not a lot of concern about the case of a page being mapped
> > 1024 times. Because pinned or not, it's likely to be effectively
> locked into memory due to LRU effects. As mentioned here, too.

That was my point of view, but David convinced me that a hostile process
can effectively lock its own memory into place.

> Anyway, sure.
>
> A detail:
>
> The unsigned cast, I'm not sure that helps or solves anything, right?
> That is, other than bugs, is it possible to get refcount < mapcount?
>
> And if it's only due to bugs, then the casting, again, isn't likely to
> going to mitigate the fallout from whatever mess the bug caused.

I wasn't thinking too hard about the cast. If the caller has the folio
lock, I don't think it's possible for refcount < mapcount. This caller
has a refcount, but doesn't hold the lock, so it is possible for them
to read mapcount first, then have both mapcount and refcount decremented
and see refcount < mapcount.

I don't think it matters too much. We don't hold the folio lock, so
it might transition from pinned to unpinned as much as a refcount might
be decremented or a mapcount incremented. What's important is that a
hostile process can't prevent memory from being moved indefinitely.

David, have I missed something else?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-29 02:33    [W:0.071 / U:3.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site