From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Very slow unlockall()
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:18:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <273db3a6-28b1-6605-1743-ef86e7eb2b72@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dfc3fe66-07ac-6aba-e10b-c940cdb01ec1@gmail.com>
On 2/1/21 8:19 PM, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 01/02/2021 19:55, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 2/1/21 7:00 PM, Milan Broz wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2021 14:08, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/21 3:39 PM, Milan Broz wrote:
>>>>> On 08/01/2021 14:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed 06-01-21 16:20:15, Milan Broz wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we use mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE) / munlockall() in cryptsetup code
>>>>>>> and someone tried to use it with hardened memory allocator library.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Execution time was increased to extreme (minutes) and as we found, the problem
>>>>>>> is in munlockall().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is a plain reproducer for the core without any external code - it takes
>>>>>>> unlocking on Fedora rawhide kernel more than 30 seconds!
>>>>>>> I can reproduce it on 5.10 kernels and Linus' git.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reproducer below tries to mmap large amount memory with PROT_NONE (later never used).
>>>>>>> The real code of course does something more useful but the problem is the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>>>>>> #include <fcntl.h>
>>>>>>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main (int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> void *p = mmap(NULL, 1UL << 41, PROT_NONE, MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
>>
>> So, this is 2TB memory area, but PROT_NONE means it's never actually populated,
>> although mlockall(MCL_CURRENT) should do that. Once you put PROT_READ |
>> PROT_WRITE there, the mlockall() starts taking ages.
>>
>> So does that reflect your use case? munlockall() with large PROT_NONE areas? If
>> so, munlock_vma_pages_range() is indeed not optimized for that, but I would
>> expect such scenario to be uncommon, so better clarify first.
>
> It is just a simple reproducer of the underlying problem, as suggested here
> https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/-/issues/617#note_478342301
>
> We use mlockall() in cryptsetup and with hardened malloc it slows down unlock significantly.
> (For the real case problem please read the whole issue report above.)
OK, finally read through the bug report, and learned two things:
1) the PROT_NONE is indeed intentional part of the reproducer
2) Linux mailing lists still have a bad reputation and people avoid them. That's
sad :( Well, thanks for overcoming that :)
Daniel there says "I think the Linux kernel implementation of mlockall is quite
broken and tries to lock all the reserved PROT_NONE regions in advance which
doesn't make any sense."
From my testing this doesn't seem to be the case, as the mlockall() part is very
fast, so I don't think it faults in and mlocks PROT_NONE areas. It only starts
to be slow when changed to PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE. But the munlockall() part is
slow even with PROT_NONE as we don't skip the PROT_NONE areas there. We probably
can't just skip them, as they might actually contain mlocked pages if those were
faulted first with PROT_READ/PROT_WRITE and only then changed to PROT_NONE.
And the munlock (munlock_vma_pages_range()) is slow, because it uses
follow_page_mask() in a loop incrementing addresses by PAGE_SIZE, so that's
always traversing all levels of page tables from scratch. Funnily enough,
speeding this up was my first linux-mm series years ago. But the speedup only
works if pte's are present, which is not the case for unpopulated PROT_NONE
areas. That use case was unexpected back then. We should probably convert this
code to a proper page table walk. If there are large areas with unpopulated pmd
entries (or even higher levels) we would traverse them very quickly.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-10 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-06 15:20 Very slow unlockall() Milan Broz
2021-01-08 13:41 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-08 14:39 ` Milan Broz
2021-01-31 17:22 ` Milan Broz
2021-02-01 13:08 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-01 18:00 ` Milan Broz
2021-02-01 18:55 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-01 19:19 ` Milan Broz
2021-02-10 15:18 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2021-02-10 16:57 ` Michal Hocko
2021-02-10 17:40 ` Michal Hocko
2021-02-11 5:21 ` Hugh Dickins
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=273db3a6-28b1-6605-1743-ef86e7eb2b72@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=gmazyland@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).