linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Check if PTE is already allocated during page fault

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:50:40 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	raz ben yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>, riel@...hat.com,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Check if PTE is already allocated during page fault

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:12:48AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> With transparent hugepage support, handle_mm_fault() has to be careful
> that a normal PMD has been established before handling a PTE fault. To
> achieve this, it used __pte_alloc() directly instead of pte_alloc_map
> as pte_alloc_map is unsafe to run against a huge PMD. pte_offset_map()
> is called once it is known the PMD is safe.
> 
> pte_alloc_map() is smart enough to check if a PTE is already present
> before calling __pte_alloc but this check was lost. As a consequence,
> PTEs may be allocated unnecessarily and the page table lock taken.
> Thi useless PTE does get cleaned up but it's a performance hit which
> is visible in page_test from aim9.
> 
> This patch simply re-adds the check normally done by pte_alloc_map to
> check if the PTE needs to be allocated before taking the page table
> lock. The effect is noticable in page_test from aim9.
> 
> AIM9
>                 2.6.38-vanilla 2.6.38-checkptenone
> creat-clo      446.10 ( 0.00%)   424.47 (-5.10%)
> page_test       38.10 ( 0.00%)    42.04 ( 9.37%)
> brk_test        52.45 ( 0.00%)    51.57 (-1.71%)
> exec_test      382.00 ( 0.00%)   456.90 (16.39%)
> fork_test       60.11 ( 0.00%)    67.79 (11.34%)
> MMTests Statistics: duration
> Total Elapsed Time (seconds)                611.90    612.22
> 
> (While this affects 2.6.38, it is a performance rather than a
> functional bug and normally outside the rules -stable. While the big
> performance differences are to a microbench, the difference in fork
> and exec performance may be significant enough that -stable wants to
> consider the patch)
> 
> Reported-by: Raz Ben Yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
--
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/