On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 18:58:18 PDT (-0700), rsworktech@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 2024-08-20 01:00, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 01:55:57PM +0800, Levi Zim wrote:
On 2024-03-22 22:06, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 18:28:06 PST (-0800), Charlie Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 11:59:43PM +0800, Yangyu Chen wrote:
On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 22:41 +0800, Yangyu Chen wrote:
On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 17:07 -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
On riscv it is guaranteed that the address returned by mmap is less
than
the hint address. Allow mmap to return an address all the way up to
addr, if provided, rather than just up to the lower address space.
This provides a performance benefit as well, allowing
mmap to exit
after
checking that the address is in range rather than searching for a
valid
address.
It is possible to provide an address that uses at most the same
number
of bits, however it is significantly more computationally expensive
to
provide that number rather than setting the max to be the hint
address.
There is the instruction clz/clzw in Zbb that returns the highest
set
bit
which could be used to performantly implement this, but it would
still
be slower than the current implementation. At worst case, half of
the
address would not be able to be allocated when a hint address is
provided.
Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins<charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h | 27 +++++++++++---------------
-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
b/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
index f19f861cda54..8ece7a8f0e18 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
@@ -14,22 +14,16 @@
#include <asm/ptrace.h>
-#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
-#define DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW (UL(1) << (MMAP_VA_BITS - 1))
-#define STACK_TOP_MAX TASK_SIZE_64
-
#define arch_get_mmap_end(addr, len, flags) \
({ \
unsigned long
mmap_end; \
typeof(addr) _addr = (addr); \
- if ((_addr) == 0 || (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT) &&
is_compat_task())) \
+ if ((_addr) == 0 || \
+ (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT) && is_compat_task()) || \
+ ((_addr + len) > BIT(VA_BITS -
1))) \
mmap_end = STACK_TOP_MAX; \
- else if ((_addr) >= VA_USER_SV57) \
- mmap_end = STACK_TOP_MAX; \
- else if ((((_addr) >= VA_USER_SV48)) && (VA_BITS >=
VA_BITS_SV48)) \
- mmap_end = VA_USER_SV48; \
else \
- mmap_end = VA_USER_SV39; \
+ mmap_end = (_addr + len); \
mmap_end; \
})
@@ -39,17 +33,18 @@
typeof(addr) _addr = (addr); \
typeof(base) _base = (base); \
unsigned long rnd_gap = DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW - (_base); \
- if ((_addr) == 0 || (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT) &&
is_compat_task())) \
+ if ((_addr) == 0 || \
+ (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT) && is_compat_task()) || \
+ ((_addr + len) > BIT(VA_BITS -
1))) \
mmap_base = (_base); \
- else if (((_addr) >= VA_USER_SV57) && (VA_BITS >=
VA_BITS_SV57)) \
- mmap_base = VA_USER_SV57 - rnd_gap; \
- else if ((((_addr) >= VA_USER_SV48)) && (VA_BITS >=
VA_BITS_SV48)) \
- mmap_base = VA_USER_SV48 - rnd_gap; \
else \
- mmap_base = VA_USER_SV39 - rnd_gap; \
+ mmap_base = (_addr + len) - rnd_gap; \
mmap_base; \
})
+#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
+#define DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW (UL(1) << (MMAP_VA_BITS - 1))
+#define STACK_TOP_MAX TASK_SIZE_64
#else
#define DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW TASK_SIZE
#define STACK_TOP_MAX TASK_SIZE
I have carefully tested your patch on qemu with sv57. A
bug that
needs
to be solved is that mmap with the same hint address without
MAP_FIXED
set will fail the second time.
Userspace code to reproduce the bug:
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
void test(char *addr) {
char *res = mmap(addr, 4096, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP_ANONYMOUS
MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
printf("hint %p got %p.\n", addr, res);
}
int main (void) {
test(1<<30);
test(1<<30);
test(1<<30);
return 0;
}
output:
hint 0x40000000 got 0x40000000.
hint 0x40000000 got 0xffffffffffffffff.
hint 0x40000000 got 0xffffffffffffffff.
output on x86:
hint 0x40000000 got 0x40000000.
hint 0x40000000 got 0x7f9171363000.
hint 0x40000000 got 0x7f9171362000.
It may need to implement a special arch_get_unmapped_area and
arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown function.
This is because hint address < rnd_gap. I have tried to let mmap_base =
min((_addr + len), (base) + TASK_SIZE - DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW). However it
does not work for bottom-up while ulimit -s is unlimited. You said this
behavior is expected from patch v2 review. However it brings a new
regression even on sv39 systems.
I still don't know the reason why use addr+len as the upper-bound. I
think solution like x86/arm64/powerpc provide two address space switch
based on whether hint address above the default map window is enough.
Yep this is expected. It is up to the maintainers to decide.
Sorry I forgot to reply to this, I had a buffer sitting around somewhere
but I must have lost it.
I think Charlie's approach is the right way to go. Putting my userspace
hat on, I'd much rather have my allocations fail rather than silently
ignore the hint when there's memory pressure.
If there's some real use case that needs these low hints to be silently
ignored under VA pressure then we can try and figure something out that
makes those applications work.
I could confirm that this patch has broken chromium's partition allocator on
riscv64. The minimal reproduction I use is chromium-mmap.c:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
int main() {
void* expected = (void*)0x400000000;
void* addr = mmap(expected, 17179869184, PROT_NONE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
if (addr != expected) {
It is not valid to assume that the address returned by mmap will be the
hint address. If the hint address is not available, mmap will return a
different address.
Oh, sorry I didn't make it clear what is the expected behavior.
The printf here is solely for debugging purpose and I don't mean that
chromium expect it will get the hint address. The expected behavior is
that both the two mmap calls will succeed.
printf("Not expected address: %p != %p\n", addr, expected);
}
expected = (void*)0x3fffff000;
addr = mmap(expected, 17179873280, PROT_NONE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS,
-1, 0);
if (addr != expected) {
printf("Not expected address: %p != %p\n", addr, expected);
}
return 0;
}
The second mmap fails with ENOMEM. Manually reverting this commit fixes the
issue for me. So I think it's clearly a regression and breaks userspace.
The issue here is that overlapping memory is being requested. This
second mmap will never be able to provide an address at 0x3fffff000 with
a size of 0x400001000 since mmap just provided an address at 0x400000000
with a size of 0x400000000.
Before this patch, this request causes mmap to return a completely
arbitrary value. There is no reason to use a hint address in this manner
because the hint can never be respected. Since an arbitrary address is
desired, a hint of zero should be used.
This patch causes the behavior to be more deterministic. Instead of
providing an arbitrary address, it causes the address to be less than or
equal to the hint address. This allows for applications to make
assumptions about the returned address.
About the overlap, of course the partition allocator's request for
overlapped vma seems unreasonable.
But I still don't quite understand why mmap cannot use an address higher
than the hint address.
The hint address, after all, is a hint, not a requirement.
Quoting the man page:
If another mapping already exists there, the kernel picks
a new address that may or may not depend on the hint. The
address of the new mapping is returned as the result of the call.
So for casual programmers that only reads man page but not architecture
specific kernel documentation, the current behavior of mmap on riscv64
failing on overlapped address ranges are quite surprising IMO.
And quoting the man page again about the errno:
ENOMEM No memory is available.
ENOMEM The process's maximum number of mappings would have been
exceeded. This error can also occur for munmap(), when
unmapping a region in the middle of an existing mapping,
since this results in two smaller mappings on either side
of the region being unmapped.
ENOMEM (since Linux 4.7) The process's RLIMIT_DATA limit,
described in getrlimit(2), would have been exceeded.
ENOMEM We don't like addr, because it exceeds the virtual address
space of the CPU.
There's no matching description for the ENOMEM returned here.
I would suggest removing "because it exceeds the virtual address
space of the CPU." from the last item if the ENOMEM behavior here
is expected.
This code is unfortunately relying on the previously mostly undefined
behavior of the hint address in mmap.
Although I haven't read the code of chromium's partition allocator to
judge whether it should
be improved or fixed for riscv64, I do know that the kernel "don't break
userspace" and "never EVER blame the user programs".
Ya, sorry for breaking stuff.
The goal here was to move to the mmap flag behavor similar to what arm64
and x86 have, as that was done in a way that didn't appear to break
userspace -- or at least any real userspace programs. IIRC that first
test was pretty broken (it actually depended on the hint address), but
sounds like that's not the case.
I think maybe this is just luck: we didn't chunk the address space up,
we're just hinting on every bit, so we're just more likely to hit the
exhaustion. Doesn't really matter, though, as if it's breaking stuff so
we've got to deal with it.
Charlie and I are just talking, and best we can come up with is to move
to the behavior where we fall back to larger allocation regions when
there's no space in the smaller allocation region. Charlie's going to
try and throw together a patch for that, hopefully it'll sort things
out.
The goal of this patch is to help
developers have more consistent mmap behavior, but maybe it is necessary
to hide this behavior behind an mmap flag.
Thank you for helping to shape a more consistent mmap behavior.
I think this should be fixed ASAP either by allowing the hint address to
be ignored
(as suggested by the Linux man page), or hide this behavior behind an
mmap flag as you said.
- Charlie
See alsohttps://github.com/riscv-forks/electron/issues/4
- Charlie
Sincerely,
Levi
I accidentally introduced some HTML into this reply so this reply is
resent as plain text.
Sincerely,
Levi
