linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm: reduce pagetable-freeing latencies

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1185662181.5495.325.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:36:20 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: reduce pagetable-freeing latencies


> The onstack array seems fine to me, even if you do end up deciding on
> an array of one.  Is there any evidence that it's a problem getting a
> page for the freeing (other than in circumstances that are already
> badly slowed down)?  It's obvious that we need a fallback route,
> but optimizing throughput on that route seems premature.

Hrm, no evidence of that so far indeed. I'm worried by the stack usage
of the unmap_mapping_ranges() but appart from that, no.

Appart from that, yeah, I suppose we can have a macro defining how many
on-stack backup we have and adjust it if we see that being a problem.
I'm not fan of dynamic on-stack allocations.

Ben.


-
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/