linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] x86: optimise page fault path a little

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:00:08 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] x86: optimise page fault path a little



On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> It's only about 1.1% on the profile of the workload I'm looking at, so my
> improvement is pretty close to in the noise, but I wonder if micro
> optimisations like the following would be welcome?

I think splitting it up is good, but I hate how your split-up ends up also 
splitting the locking (ie now you do a "down_read()" and "up_read()" in 
different functions).

I also think that to some degree you made it less readable, particularly 
this area:

	+       if (write) {
	+               if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) {
	+                       bad_area_accerr(regs, error_code, address);
	+                       return;
	+               }
	+       } else if (unlikely(error_code & PF_PROT)) {
	+               bad_area_accerr(regs, error_code, address);
	+               return;
	+       } else if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_READ | VM_EXEC | VM_WRITE)))) {
	+               bad_area_accerr(regs, error_code, address);
	+               return;

makes me go "whaa?" and I wonder if it wouldn't be nicer to have one 
complex conditional hidden in an inline function, and then just have

	if (unlikely(access_error(write, error_code, vma))) {
		bad_area_access_error(regs, error_code, address);
		return;
	}

where the point is that we don't want to duplicate the error case three 
times, and that "accerr" is bad naming.

IOW, I do think that the patch looks like a step in the right direction, 
but cleanliness should be a primary concern.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/