linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] Delay initializing of large sections of memory

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:	Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:08:06 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
CC:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, holt@....com, travis@....com,
	rob@...dley.net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	yinghai@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Delay initializing of large sections of memory

Is this init code?  32K of unconditional runtime addition isn't completely trivial.

Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com> wrote:

>On 06/21/2013 12:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 06/21/2013 10:18 AM, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>>>> Since you made it a compile time option, it would be good to know
>how
>>>> much code it adds, but otherwise I agree with Greg here... this
>really
>>>> shouldn't need to be an option.  It *especially* shouldn't need to
>be a
>>>> hand-set runtime option (which looks quite complex, to boot.)
>>> The patchset as a whole is just over 400 lines so it doesn't add
>alot.
>>> If I were to pull the .config option it would probably remove 30
>lines.
>> I'm more concerned about bytes of code.
>Oh, The difference is just under 32k.
>371843425 Jun 21 14:08 vmlinux.o /* DELAY_MEM_INIT is not set  */
>371875600 Jun 21 14:36 vmlinux.o /* DELAY_MEM_INIT=y */
>
>>
>>> The command line option is too complex but some of the data I
>haven't
>>> found a way to get at runtime yet.
>> I think that is probably key.
>>
>>>> I suspect the cutoff for this should be a lot lower than 8 TB even,
>more
>>>> like 128 GB or so.  The only concern is to not set the cutoff so
>low
>>>> that we can end up running out of memory or with suboptimal NUMA
>>>> placement just because of this.
>>> Even at lower amounts of ram there is an positive impact.I it knocks
>>> time off
>>> boot even at as small as a 1TB of ram.
>> I am not surprised.
>>
>> 	-hpa
>>

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/