Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] fix free pmd/pte page handlings on x86

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Mon 25-06-18 21:15:03, Kani Toshimitsu wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 19:53 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 25-06-18 14:56:26, Kani Toshimitsu wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2018-06-24 at 15:19 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 May 2018, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > This series fixes two issues in the x86 ioremap free page handlings
> > > > > for pud/pmd mappings.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Patch 01 fixes BUG_ON on x86-PAE reported by Joerg.  It disables
> > > > > the free page handling on x86-PAE.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Patch 02-03 fixes a possible issue with speculation which can cause
> > > > > stale page-directory cache.
> > > > >  - Patch 02 is from Chintan's v9 01/04 patch [1], which adds a new arg
> > > > >    'addr', with my merge change to patch 01.
> > > > >  - Patch 03 adds a TLB purge (INVLPG) to purge page-structure caches
> > > > >    that may be cached by speculation.  See the patch descriptions for
> > > > >    more detal.
> > > > 
> > > > Toshi, Joerg, Michal!
> > > 
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for checking. I was about to ping as well.
> > > 
> > > > I'm failing to find a conclusion of this discussion. Can we finally make
> > > > some progress with that?
> > > 
> > > I have not heard from Joerg since I last replied to his comments to
> > > Patch 3/3 -- I did my best to explain that there was no issue in the
> > > single page allocation in pud_free_pmd_page().  From my perspective, the
> > >  v3 series is good to go.
> > 
> > Well, I admit that this not my area but I agree with Joerg that
> > allocating memory inside afunction that is supposed to free page table
> > is far from ideal. More so that the allocation is hardcoded GFP_KERNEL.
> > We already have this antipattern in functions to allocate page tables
> > and it has turned to be maintenance PITA longterm. So if there is a way
> > around that then I would strongly suggest finding a different solution.
> > 
> > Whether that is sufficient to ditch the whole series is not my call
> > though.
> 
> I'd agree if this code is in a memory free path.  However, this code is
> in the ioremap() path, which is expected to allocate new page(s).

This might be the case right now but my experience tells me that
something named this generic and placed in a generic pte handling header
file will end up being called in many other places you even do not
expect right now sooner or later.

> For example, setting a fresh PUD map allocates a new page to setup page
> tables as follows:
> 
>   ioremap_pud_range()
>     pud_alloc()
>       __pud_alloc()
>         pud_alloc_one()
>           get_zeroed_page() with GFP_KERNEL
>             __get_free_pages() with GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO
> 
> In a rare case, a PUD map is set to a previously-used-for-PMD range,
> which leads to call pud_free_pmd_page() to free up the page consisting
> of cleared PMD entries.  To manage this procedure, pud_free_pmd_page()
> temporary allocates a page to save the cleared PMD entries as follows:
> 
>   ioremap_pud_range()
>     pud_free_pmd_page()
>       __get_free_page() with GFP_KERNEL
> 
> These details are all internal to the ioremap() callers, who should
> always expect that ioremap() allocates pages for setting page tables.
> 
> As for possible performance implications associated with this page
> allocation, pmd_free_pte_page() and pud_free_pmd_page() are very
> different in terms of how likely they can be called.
> 
> pmd_free_pte_page(), which does not allocate a page, gets called
> multiple times during normal boot on my test systems.  My ioremap tests
> cause this function be called quite frequently.  This is because 4KB and
> 2MB vaddr allocation comes from similar vmalloc ranges. 
> 
> pud_free_pmd_page(), which allocates a page, seems to be never called
> under normal circumstances, at least I was not able to with my ioremap
> tests.  I found that 1GB vaddr allocation does not share with 4KB/2MB
> ranges.  I had to hack the allocation code to force them shared to test
> this function.  Hence, this memory allocation does not have any
> implications in performance.

Again, this is all too much focused on your particular testing and the
current code base. Neither is a great foundation for design decisions.

> Lastly, for the code maintenance, I believe this memory allocation keeps
> the code much simpler than it would otherwise need to manage a special
> page list.

Yes, I can see a simplicity as a reasonable argument for a quick fix,
which these pile is supposed to be AFAIU. So this might be good to go
from that perspective, but I believe that this should be changed in
future at least.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs