| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:12:17 +0800
From: Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>,
Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>,
Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>,
YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm: page_alloc: reduce unnecessary binary search
in memblock_next_valid_pfn()
On 3/30/2018 9:43 AM, Wei Yang Wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 04:06:38PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
>>
>> On 3/28/2018 5:26 PM, Wei Yang Wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 08:02:16PM -0700, Jia He wrote:
>>>> Commit b92df1de5d28 ("mm: page_alloc: skip over regions of invalid pfns
>>>> where possible") optimized the loop in memmap_init_zone(). But there is
>>>> still some room for improvement. E.g. if pfn and pfn+1 are in the same
>>>> memblock region, we can simply pfn++ instead of doing the binary search
>>>> in memblock_next_valid_pfn. This patch only works when
>>>> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID is enable.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/memblock.h | 2 +-
>>>> mm/memblock.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +-
>>>> 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
>>>> index efbbe4b..a8fb2ab 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
>>>> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ void __next_mem_pfn_range(int *idx, int nid, unsigned long *out_start_pfn,
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP */
>>>>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
>>>> -unsigned long memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn);
>>>> +unsigned long memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn, int *idx);
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> /**
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
>>>> index bea5a9c..06c1a08 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memblock.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
>>>> @@ -1102,35 +1102,6 @@ void __init_memblock __next_mem_pfn_range(int *idx, int nid,
>>>> *out_nid = r->nid;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
>>>> -unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn)
>>>> -{
>>>> - struct memblock_type *type = &memblock.memory;
>>>> - unsigned int right = type->cnt;
>>>> - unsigned int mid, left = 0;
>>>> - phys_addr_t addr = PFN_PHYS(++pfn);
>>>> -
>>>> - do {
>>>> - mid = (right + left) / 2;
>>>> -
>>>> - if (addr < type->regions[mid].base)
>>>> - right = mid;
>>>> - else if (addr >= (type->regions[mid].base +
>>>> - type->regions[mid].size))
>>>> - left = mid + 1;
>>>> - else {
>>>> - /* addr is within the region, so pfn is valid */
>>>> - return pfn;
>>>> - }
>>>> - } while (left < right);
>>>> -
>>>> - if (right == type->cnt)
>>>> - return -1UL;
>>>> - else
>>>> - return PHYS_PFN(type->regions[right].base);
>>>> -}
>>>> -#endif /*CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID*/
>>>> -
>>>> /**
>>>> * memblock_set_node - set node ID on memblock regions
>>>> * @base: base of area to set node ID for
>>>> @@ -1162,6 +1133,50 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_set_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
>>>> }
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP */
>>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
>>>> +unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn,
>>>> + int *last_idx)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct memblock_type *type = &memblock.memory;
>>>> + unsigned int right = type->cnt;
>>>> + unsigned int mid, left = 0;
>>>> + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
>>>> + phys_addr_t addr = PFN_PHYS(++pfn);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* fast path, return pfh+1 if next pfn is in the same region */
>>> ^^^ pfn
>> Thanks
>>>> + if (*last_idx != -1) {
>>>> + start_pfn = PFN_DOWN(type->regions[*last_idx].base);
>>> To me, it should be PFN_UP().
>> hmm.., seems all the base of memory region is pfn aligned (0x10000 aligned).
>> So
>>
>> PFN_UP is the same as PFN_DOWN here?
>> I got this logic from memblock_search_pfn_nid()
> Ok, I guess here hide some buggy code.
>
> When you look at __next_mem_pfn_range(), it uses PFN_UP() for base. The reason
> is try to clip some un-page-aligned memory. While PFN_DOWN() will introduce
> some unavailable memory to system.
>
> Even mostly those address are page-aligned, we need to be careful for this.
>
> Let me drop a patch to fix the original one.
Ok, please cc me, I will change the related code when your patch is
accepted. ;-)
>> Cheers,
>> Jia
>>
>>>> + end_pfn = PFN_DOWN(type->regions[*last_idx].base +
>>>> + type->regions[*last_idx].size);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (pfn < end_pfn && pfn > start_pfn)
>>> Could be (pfn < end_pfn && pfn >= start_pfn)?
>>>
>>> pfn == start_pfn is also a valid address.
>> No, pfn=pfn+1 at the beginning, so pfn != start_pfn
> This is a little bit tricky.
>
> There is no requirement to pass a valid pfn to memblock_next_valid_pfn(). So
> suppose we have memory layout like this:
>
> [0x100, 0x1ff]
> [0x300, 0x3ff]
>
> And I call memblock_next_valid_pfn(0x2ff, 1), would this fits the fast path
> logic?
>
> Well, since memblock_next_valid_pfn() only used memmap_init_zone(), the
> situation as I mentioned seems will not happen.
>
> Even though, I suggest to chagne this, otherwise your logic in slow path and
> fast path differs. In the case above, your slow path returns 0x300 at last.
ok. looks like it does no harm, even I thought the code will guarantee
it to skip from 0x1ff
to 0x300 directly.
I will change it after fuctional test.
--
Cheers,
Jia
>>>> + return pfn;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /* slow path, do the binary searching */
>>>> + do {
>>>> + mid = (right + left) / 2;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (addr < type->regions[mid].base)
>>>> + right = mid;
>>>> + else if (addr >= (type->regions[mid].base +
>>>> + type->regions[mid].size))
>>>> + left = mid + 1;
>>>> + else {
>>>> + *last_idx = mid;
>>>> + return pfn;
>>>> + }
>>>> + } while (left < right);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (right == type->cnt)
>>>> + return -1UL;
>>>> +
>>>> + *last_idx = right;
>>>> +
>>>> + return PHYS_PFN(type->regions[*last_idx].base);
>>>> +}
>>>> +#endif /*CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID*/
>>> The same comment as Daniel, you are moving the function out of
>>> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP.
>>>> +
>>>> static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
>>>> phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
>>>> phys_addr_t end, int nid, ulong flags)
>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>> index 2a967f7..0bb0274 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>> @@ -5459,6 +5459,7 @@ void __meminit memmap_init_zone(unsigned long size, int nid, unsigned long zone,
>>>> unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + size;
>>>> pg_data_t *pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
>>>> unsigned long pfn;
>>>> + int idx = -1;
>>>> unsigned long nr_initialised = 0;
>>>> struct page *page;
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
>>>> @@ -5490,7 +5491,7 @@ void __meminit memmap_init_zone(unsigned long size, int nid, unsigned long zone,
>>>> * end_pfn), such that we hit a valid pfn (or end_pfn)
>>>> * on our next iteration of the loop.
>>>> */
>>>> - pfn = memblock_next_valid_pfn(pfn) - 1;
>>>> + pfn = memblock_next_valid_pfn(pfn, &idx) - 1;
>>>> #endif
>>>> continue;
>>>> }
>>>> --
>>>> 2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists