On (02/09/08 10:21), KOSAKI Motohiro didst pronounce:
quoted text > CCed Mel Golman
>
> > > > One caution though: how well does it behave when coredumping a large
> > > > area of hugepages which have not actually been instantiated prior to
> > > > the coredump? We have that funny FOLL_ANON ZERO_PAGE code in
> > > > follow_page() to avoid wasting memory on large uninstantiated anon
> > > > areas, but hugepages won't go that way. If the dump hangs waiting for
> > > > memory to be freed, or OOMkills other processes, that wouldn't be good;
> > > > whereas if hugepage reservations (I've not followed what happens with
> > > > them) or whatever just make it skip when no more, that should be okay.
> > >
> > > I think hugepage reservation pages always exist when hugepage COW happend.
> > > Then, hugepage access never cause try_to_free_pages() nor OOM.
> >
> > (Mel, since you wrote the private reservation hugetlb code, would you
> > care to verify the following:)
> >
> > Well, reserved huge pages _almost_ always exist. The notable exception
> > happens when a process creates a MAP_PRIVATE hugetlb mapping and then
> > forks.
Also when MAP_NORESERVE is specified, there is not guarantee the huge
pages exist.
quoted text > > No guarantees are made to the children for access to that
> > hugetlb mapping. So if such a child were to core dump an unavailable
> > huge page, follow_hugetlb_page() would fail. I think that case is
> > harmless since it looks like elf_coredump() will replace it with a
> > zeroed page?
> >
> > The part of Hugh's email that does deserve more attention is the part
> > about FOLL_ANON and the ZERO_PAGE. It seems like an awful waste to zero
> > out and instantiate huge pages just for a core dump.
> > I think it would
> > be worth adding a flag to follow_hugetlb_page() so that it can be
> > instructed to not fault in un-instantiated huge pages. This would take
> > some investigating as to whether it is even valid for
> > follow_hugetlb_page() to return the ZERO_PAGE().
>
> Adam, Thank you precious explain.
>
> Honestly, I can't imazine non-zero-page-support cause terrible things.
> Can you explain when happend the terrible things?
> I don't know its problem is big issue or not.
I believe the impact is that core dumps could take longer and be of a larger
size than necessary if uninstantiated pages are not skipped. However, if the
zero page was used for anything other than core dumps, you have to be sure
that only the base pages worth of data is being read. I'm not convinced your
patch is doing that. For example, what happens if you ptrace an application
and read the memory area?
quoted text > Anyway, I made hugepage's zero page patch.
> Could you please see it?
>
>
>
> =======================================================================================
> Subject: hugepage: supoort ZERO_PAGE()
>
s/supoort/support/
quoted text > Now, hugepage doesn't use zero page at all because zero page is almost used for coredumping only
> and it isn't supported ago.
>
> But now, we implemented hugepage coredumping and we should implement the zero page of hugepage.
> The patch do that.
>
>
> Implementation note:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> o Why do we only check VM_SHARED for zero page?
> normal page checked as ..
>
Offhand, I'm not 100% certain but I think it's because a shared mapping
should always fault the page in case another process sharing the mapping
has put real data there.
quoted text > static inline int use_zero_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED | VM_SHARED))
> return 0;
>
> return !vma->vm_ops || !vma->vm_ops->fault;
> }
>
> First, hugepages never mlock()ed. we don't need concern to VM_LOCKED.
>
> Second, hugetlbfs is pseudo filesystem, not real filesystem and it doesn't have any file backing.
> Then, ops->fault checking is meaningless.
>
>
> o Why don't we use zero page if !pte.
>
> !pte indicate {pud, pmd} doesn't exist or any error happend.
> So, We shouldn't return zero page if any error happend.
>
>
>
> test method
> -------------------------------------------------------
> console 1:
>
> # su
> # echo 100 >/proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
> # mount -t hugetlbfs none /hugetlbfs/
> # watch -n1 cat /proc/meminfo
>
> console 2:
> % gcc -g -Wall crash_hugepage.c -o crash_hugepage -lhugetlbfs
> % ulimit -c unlimited
> % echo 0x23 >/proc/self/coredump_filter
> % HUGETLB_MORECORE=yes ./crash_hugepage 50
> -> segmentation fault
> % gdb
>
> crash_hugepage.c
> ----------------------
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> #define HUGEPAGE_SIZE (2*1024*1024)
>
It's not a bit deal but as you link against libhugetlbfs, you could have
also included the header and called gethugepagesize().
quoted text > int main(int argc, char** argv){
> char* p;
>
> p = malloc( atoi(argv[1]) * HUGEPAGE_SIZE);
> sleep(2);
>
> *(p + HUGEPAGE_SIZE) = 1;
> sleep(2);
>
> *(int*)0 = 1;
>
> return 0;
> }
> --------------------------------
>
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> CC: Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>
> CC: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
> CC: Kawai Hidehiro <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>
> CC: William Irwin <wli@holomorphy.com>
> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@skynet.ie>
>
> ---
> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 6 ++++--
> mm/hugetlb.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> mm/memory.c | 3 ++-
> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: b/mm/hugetlb.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c 2008-08-31 01:57:36.000000000 +0900
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c 2008-09-02 08:39:31.000000000 +0900
> @@ -2022,15 +2022,30 @@ follow_huge_pud(struct mm_struct *mm, un
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static int huge_zeropage_ok(pte_t *ptep, int write, int shared)
> +{
> + if (!ptep)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (write)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (shared)
> + return 0;
> +
> + return huge_pte_none(huge_ptep_get(ptep));
> +}
> +
> int follow_hugetlb_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> struct page **pages, struct vm_area_struct **vmas,
> unsigned long *position, int *length, int i,
> - int write)
> + int write, int shared)
> {
> unsigned long pfn_offset;
> unsigned long vaddr = *position;
> int remainder = *length;
> struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(vma);
> + int zeropage_ok = 0;
>
> spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> while (vaddr < vma->vm_end && remainder) {
> @@ -2043,8 +2058,11 @@ int follow_hugetlb_page(struct mm_struct
> * first, for the page indexing below to work.
> */
> pte = huge_pte_offset(mm, vaddr & huge_page_mask(h));
> + if (huge_zeropage_ok(pte, write, shared))
> + zeropage_ok = 1;
>
> - if (!pte || huge_pte_none(huge_ptep_get(pte)) ||
> + if (!pte ||
> + (huge_pte_none(huge_ptep_get(pte)) && !zeropage_ok) ||
> (write && !pte_write(huge_ptep_get(pte)))) {
> int ret;
>
> @@ -2061,11 +2079,14 @@ int follow_hugetlb_page(struct mm_struct
> }
>
> pfn_offset = (vaddr & ~huge_page_mask(h)) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - page = pte_page(huge_ptep_get(pte));
> + if (zeropage_ok)
> + page = ZERO_PAGE(0);
> + else
> + page = pte_page(huge_ptep_get(pte));
This does not look safe in the ptrace case at all. If I ptrace the app
to read a hugetlbfs-backed region, get_user_pages() gets called and then
this. In that case, it would appear that a 4K page would be put in place
where a hugepage is expected. What am I missing?
quoted text > same_page:
> if (pages) {
> get_page(page);
> - pages[i] = page + pfn_offset;
> + pages[i] = page + (zeropage_ok ? 0 : pfn_offset);
> }
>
> if (vmas)
> Index: b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> ===================================================================
> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h 2008-09-02 08:05:46.000000000 +0900
> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h 2008-09-02 08:40:46.000000000 +0900
> @@ -21,7 +21,9 @@ int hugetlb_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_ta
> int hugetlb_overcommit_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, struct file *, void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> int hugetlb_treat_movable_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, struct file *, void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> int copy_hugetlb_page_range(struct mm_struct *, struct mm_struct *, struct vm_area_struct *);
> -int follow_hugetlb_page(struct mm_struct *, struct vm_area_struct *, struct page **, struct vm_area_struct **, unsigned long *, int *, int, int);
> +int follow_hugetlb_page(struct mm_struct *, struct vm_area_struct *,
> + struct page **, struct vm_area_struct **,
> + unsigned long *, int *, int, int, int);
> void unmap_hugepage_range(struct vm_area_struct *,
> unsigned long, unsigned long, struct page *);
> void __unmap_hugepage_range(struct vm_area_struct *,
> @@ -74,7 +76,7 @@ static inline unsigned long hugetlb_tota
> return 0;
> }
>
> -#define follow_hugetlb_page(m,v,p,vs,a,b,i,w) ({ BUG(); 0; })
> +#define follow_hugetlb_page(m, v, p, vs, a, b, i, w, s) ({ BUG(); 0; })
> #define follow_huge_addr(mm, addr, write) ERR_PTR(-EINVAL)
> #define copy_hugetlb_page_range(src, dst, vma) ({ BUG(); 0; })
> #define hugetlb_prefault(mapping, vma) ({ BUG(); 0; })
> Index: b/mm/memory.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/mm/memory.c 2008-08-30 11:31:53.000000000 +0900
> +++ b/mm/memory.c 2008-09-02 08:41:12.000000000 +0900
> @@ -1208,7 +1208,8 @@ int __get_user_pages(struct task_struct
>
> if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) {
> i = follow_hugetlb_page(mm, vma, pages, vmas,
> - &start, &len, i, write);
> + &start, &len, i, write,
> + vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED);
> continue;
> }
>
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/ Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] hugepage: support ZERO_PAGE() , Mel Gorman , (Tue Sep 2, 7:22 am)
