linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mm/mremap: Remove redundant checks inside vma

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:   Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:26:40 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/mremap: Remove redundant checks inside vma_expandable()

On 07/11/2017 08:03 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 11-07-17 09:58:42, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> here. This is hardly something that would save many cycles in a
>>> relatively cold path.
>>
>> Though I have not done any detailed instruction level measurement,
>> there is a reduction in real and system amount of time to execute
>> the test with and without the patch.
>>
>> Without the patch
>>
>> real	0m2.100s
>> user	0m0.162s
>> sys	0m1.937s
>>
>> With this patch
>>
>> real	0m0.928s
>> user	0m0.161s
>> sys	0m0.756s
> 
> Are you telling me that two if conditions cause more than a second
> difference? That sounds suspicious.

It's removing also a call to get_unmapped_area(), AFAICS. That means a
vma search?