From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70325C48BE2 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:40:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FDA020B1F for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:40:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1561020051; bh=BV5RFz7v+T0uSAD6vf7PoWeC6dfOHXNMOmIGDyaaLgE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=x8JYUYLVwoNjRo4D4jAFBJr+xvRQHCCzsBe5EvTAScaqzzZY7MjBnVliL3TVPFrGN 4l2+TfOhIK+RX4gLOipiocRMy+7Osce9j1IbBZ4MApzKcCwCSVGGnI43WZ95vsRa/7 HFHTgJuodYJQ/QTSdEoEfIBo6MAygLqP0QQxJsWk= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730710AbfFTIku (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:40:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:37519 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725875AbfFTIkt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:40:49 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id bh12so1105548plb.4; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 01:40:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=17FuFbjPRyXfho+sH140B0KsINkMD6CIqFuZH9j134k=; b=bpeSe/TO4VzZbxc/KZ2GE5LRHBCnLc4SONYYnNGkU9d54pqqLXNld/9R2UT8g9R2+B 6o+WsxOzUvMmtRyHTWf+1mXxchfjlU2gKko+aJL7ivLuZ4pPOhDILf8o+JJQYTKQGYrG vaWITaJb+CmzdwpFHIpmnNbJZ1Dit8/zBA04M0XNIeQwbV/Yhf9vRxxY/p2x4qF13NcJ ghPEVWTvbpC/hEH7bfBk9wVkeg60J6XWu3xYttsIAUK7hTZ6imhU5l4TXPc+OmP1Ikj3 tYeodl7OlTy2Hw//7WvY+N8RGltMdCFBb7jJ4TgJS3JnWigeNUzoFFiuu72I453PGbPO EjFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=17FuFbjPRyXfho+sH140B0KsINkMD6CIqFuZH9j134k=; b=N75SKuYldf6aeormrh4h85fFffvKAFDWAKuUc9O6DZIwVBSOTKrtXWke9ivVuSoA22 Wl9avoNsiBCU0AAkxAnt6wboaCik+2xA+BC9Pb4rla7iBvNUqXcaw/1jeR/vAS6b3JnC S9337hzYfWKuSADdAuhDYg6gCsPyGQM7NbAHBBuJqRkcfaer6GY8iMa6e2IH3WlsqTFB yPi778MQ6vDMEEHRk9K/VIbKlnI8VwifgD+AArqvU36iq26/QFOR3813rVMFhveeNdnm 8twk7RGd4Gla2eVVT1/ijWeLZzwz4u33eMdY9NtKeKjGBQw2MnAxQgwC9t96Z5b89z83 Vt4w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX15rXk+47WGgvS88lZBeZgWUKGURrbsDw62D0S/BrW2Scpq/j5 dQ097KDL3XrOo9GxsmaZfII= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzsuQmdRBtyel5WmdHfE+nZt+hM5RlpYRct0NLIEycnp0qhp5IaVKy9GqrsUtL03dc/DAuhBA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:704a:: with SMTP id h10mr16187296plt.337.1561020048599; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 01:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2401:fa00:d:0:98f1:8b3d:1f37:3e8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j2sm28034806pfn.135.2019.06.20.01.40.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 01:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:40:40 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm , LKML , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner , Tim Murray , Joel Fernandes , Suren Baghdasaryan , Daniel Colascione , Shakeel Butt , Sonny Rao , Brian Geffon , jannh@google.com, oleg@redhat.com, christian@brauner.io, oleksandr@redhat.com, hdanton@sina.com, lizeb@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: introduce MADV_PAGEOUT Message-ID: <20190620084040.GD105727@google.com> References: <20190610111252.239156-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20190610111252.239156-5-minchan@kernel.org> <20190619132450.GQ2968@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190620041620.GB105727@google.com> <20190620070444.GB12083@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190620070444.GB12083@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 09:04:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 20-06-19 13:16:20, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 03:24:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 10-06-19 20:12:51, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > [...] > > > > +static int madvise_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, > > > > + unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk) > > > > > > Again the same question about a potential code reuse... > > > [...] > > > > +regular_page: > > > > + tlb_change_page_size(tlb, PAGE_SIZE); > > > > + orig_pte = pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl); > > > > + flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm); > > > > + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode(); > > > > + for (; addr < end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) { > > > > + ptent = *pte; > > > > + if (!pte_present(ptent)) > > > > + continue; > > > > + > > > > + page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, ptent); > > > > + if (!page) > > > > + continue; > > > > + > > > > + if (isolate_lru_page(page)) > > > > + continue; > > > > + > > > > + isolated++; > > > > + if (pte_young(ptent)) { > > > > + ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, > > > > + tlb->fullmm); > > > > + ptent = pte_mkold(ptent); > > > > + set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent); > > > > + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr); > > > > + } > > > > + ClearPageReferenced(page); > > > > + test_and_clear_page_young(page); > > > > + list_add(&page->lru, &page_list); > > > > + if (isolated >= SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) { > > > > > > Why do we need SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX batching? Especially when we need ... > > > [...] > > > > It aims for preventing early OOM kill since we isolate too many LRU > > pages concurrently. > > This is a good point. For some reason I thought that we consider > isolated pages in should_reclaim_retry but we do not anymore (since we > move from zone to node LRUs I guess). Please stick a comment there. Sure. > > > > > +unsigned long reclaim_pages(struct list_head *page_list) > > > > +{ > > > > + int nid = -1; > > > > + unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0; > > > > + LIST_HEAD(node_page_list); > > > > + struct reclaim_stat dummy_stat; > > > > + struct scan_control sc = { > > > > + .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL, > > > > + .priority = DEF_PRIORITY, > > > > + .may_writepage = 1, > > > > + .may_unmap = 1, > > > > + .may_swap = 1, > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + while (!list_empty(page_list)) { > > > > + struct page *page; > > > > + > > > > + page = lru_to_page(page_list); > > > > + if (nid == -1) { > > > > + nid = page_to_nid(page); > > > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&node_page_list); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (nid == page_to_nid(page)) { > > > > + list_move(&page->lru, &node_page_list); > > > > + continue; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&node_page_list, > > > > + NODE_DATA(nid), > > > > + &sc, 0, > > > > + &dummy_stat, false); > > > > > > per-node batching in fact. Other than that nothing really jumped at me. > > > Except for the shared page cache side channel timing aspect not being > > > considered AFAICS. To be more specific. Pushing out a shared page cache > > > is possible even now but this interface gives a much easier tool to > > > evict shared state and perform all sorts of timing attacks. Unless I am > > > missing something we should be doing something similar to mincore and > > > ignore shared pages without a writeable access or at least document why > > > we do not care. > > > > I'm not sure IIUC side channel attach. As you mentioned, without this syscall, > > 1. they already can do that simply by memory hogging > > This is way much more harder for practical attacks because the reclaim > logic is not fully under the attackers control. Having a direct tool to > reclaim memory directly then just opens doors to measure the other > consumers of that memory and all sorts of side channel. Not sure it's much more harder. It's really easy on my experience. Just creating new memory hogger and consume memory step by step until you newly allocated pages will be reclaimed. Anyway, we fixed mincore so attacker cannot see when the page fault-in if he don't enough permission for the file. Right? What's the concern of you even though we reclaim more aggressively? > > > 2. If we need fix MADV_PAGEOUT, that means we need to fix MADV_DONTNEED, too? > > nope because MADV_DONTNEED doesn't unmap from other processes. Hmm, I don't understand. MADV_PAGEOUT doesn't unmap from other processes, either. Could you elborate it a bit more what's your concern? > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs