linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] zsmalloc: remove x86 dependency

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:	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:42:40 -0700
From:	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
To:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] zsmalloc: remove x86 dependency

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Seth Jennings
<sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 01:26 PM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 02:15 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>>> This patch replaces the page table assisted object mapping
>>> method, which has x86 dependencies, with a arch-independent
>>> method that does a simple copy into a temporary per-cpu
>>> buffer.
>>>
>>> While a copy seems like it would be worse than mapping the pages,
>>> tests demonstrate the copying is always faster and, in the case of
>>> running inside a KVM guest, roughly 4x faster.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/staging/zsmalloc/Kconfig         |    4 --
>>>  drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c |   99 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>  drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc_int.h  |    5 +-
>>>  3 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>>
>>>  struct mapping_area {
>>> -    struct vm_struct *vm;
>>> -    pte_t *vm_ptes[2];
>>> -    char *vm_addr;
>>> +    char *vm_buf; /* copy buffer for objects that span pages */
>>> +    char *vm_addr; /* address of kmap_atomic()'ed pages */
>>>  };
>>>
>>
>> I think we can reduce the copying overhead by not copying an entire
>> compressed object to another (per-cpu) buffer. The basic idea of the
>> method below is to:
>>  - Copy only the amount of data that spills over into the next page
>>  - No need for a separate buffer to copy into
>>
>> Currently, we store objects that split across pages as:
>>
>> +-Page1-+
>> |     |
>> |     |
>> |-------| <-- obj-1 off: 0
>> |<ob1'>       |
>> +-------+ <-- obj-1 off: s'
>>
>> +-Page2-+ <-- obj-1 off: s'
>> |<ob1''>|
>> |-------| <-- obj-1 off: obj1_size, obj-2 off: 0
>> |<ob2>        |
>> |-------| <-- obj-2 off: obj2_size
>> +-------+
>>
>> But now we would store it as:
>>
>> +-Page1-+
>> |     |
>> |-------| <-- obj-1 off: s''
>> |     |
>> |<ob1'>       |
>> +-------+ <-- obj-1 off: obj1_size
>>
>> +-Page2-+ <-- obj-1 off: 0
>> |<ob1''>|
>> |-------| <-- obj-1 off: s'', obj-2 off: 0
>> |<ob2>        |
>> |-------| <-- obj-2 off: obj2_size
>> +-------+
>>
>> When object-1 (ob1) is to be mapped, part (size: s'-0) of object-2 will
>> be swapped with ob1'. This swapping can be done in-place using simple
>> xor swap algorithm. So, after swap, page-1 and page-2 will look like:
>>
>> +-Page1-+
>> |     |
>> |-------| <-- obj-2 off: 0
>> |     |
>> |<ob2''>|
>> +-------+ <-- obj-2 off: (obj1_size - s'')
>>
>> +-Page2-+ <-- obj-1 off: 0
>> |     |
>> |<ob1>        |
>> |-------| <-- obj-1 off: obj1_size, obj-2 off: (obj1_size - s'')
>> |<ob2'>       |
>> +-------+ <-- obj-2 off: obj2_size
>>
>> Now obj-1 lies completely within page-2, so can be kmap'ed as usual. On
>> zs_unmap_object() we would just do the reverse and restore objects as in
>> figure-1.
>
> Hey Nitin, thanks for the feedback.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you wouldn't be able to map
> ob2 while ob1 was mapped with this design.  You'd need some sort of
> zspage level protection against concurrent object mappings.  The
> code for that protection might cancel any benefit you would gain by
> doing it this way.
>

Do you think blocking access of just one particular object (or
blocking an entire zspage, for simplicity) for a short time would be
an issue, apart from the complexity of implementing per zspage
locking?

Thanks,
Nitin
--
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/