linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH RESEND] mm: vmalloc: remove ioremap align constraint

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:	Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:38:06 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Dmitry Safonov <d.safonov@...tner.samsung.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Dyasly Sergey <s.dyasly@...sung.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>,
	Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RESEND] mm: vmalloc: remove ioremap align constraint

On Saturday 03 January 2015 18:59:46 Sergey Dyasly wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> First, some background information. We originally encountered high fragmentation
> issue in vmalloc area:
> 
> 	1. Total size of vmalloc area was 400 MB.
> 	2. 200 MB of vmalloc area was consumed by ioremaps of various sizes.
> 	3. Largest contiguous chunk of vmalloc area was 12 MB.
> 	4. ioremap of 10 MB failed due to 8 MB alignment requirement.

Interesting, can you describe how you end up with that many ioremap mappings?
200MB seems like a lot. Do you perhaps get a lot of duplicate entries for the
same hardware registers, or maybe a leak?

Can you send the output of /proc/vmallocinfo?
 
> It was decided to further increase the size of vmalloc area to resolve the above
> issue. And I don't like that solution because it decreases the amount of lowmem.

If all the mappings are in fact required, have you considered using
CONFIG_VMSPLIT_2G split to avoid the use of highmem?

> Now let's see how ioremap uses supersections. Judging from current implementation
> of __arm_ioremap_pfn_caller:
> 
> 	#if !defined(CONFIG_SMP) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_LPAE)
> 		if (pfn >= 0x100000 && !((paddr | size | addr) & ~SUPERSECTION_MASK)) {
> 			remap_area_supersections();
> 		} else if (!((paddr | size | addr) & ~PMD_MASK)) {
> 			remap_area_sections();
> 		} else
> 	#endif
> 			err = ioremap_page_range();
> 
> supersections and sections mappings are used only in !SMP && !LPAE case.
> Otherwise, mapping is created using the usual 4K pages (and we are using SMP).
> The suggested patch removes alignment requirements for ioremap but it means that
> sections will not be used in !SMP case. So another solution is required.
> 
> __get_vm_area_node has align parameter, maybe it can be used to specify the
> required alignment of ioremap operation? Because I find current generic fls
> algorithm to be very restrictive in cases when it's not necessary to use such
> a big alignment.

I think using next-power-of-two alignment generally helps limit the effects of
fragmentation the same way that the buddy allocator works.

Since the section and supersection maps are only used with non-SMP non-LPAE
(why is that the case btw?), it would however make sense to use the default
(7 + PAGE_SHIFT) instead of the ARM-specific 24 here if one of them is set,
I don't see any downsides to that.

	Arnd
--
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/