linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] x86,percpu: fix pageattr handling with remap allocator

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]

Message-ID: <4A0D23A4.30006@kernel.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 May 2009 17:11:16 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, andi@...stfloor.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] x86,percpu: fix pageattr handling with remap		 allocator

Hello,

Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The whole point of doing the remapping is giving each CPU its own PMD
>> mapping for perpcu area, so, yeah, that's the requirement.  I don't
>> think the requirement is hidden tho.
> 
> No, from looking at the code the requirement seems to only be that you
> get memory allocated from the correct node and mapped by a large page.
> There's nothing said why the final virtual address would need to be large
> page aligned. I.e., with a slight modification to take the NUMA requirement
> into account (I noticed I ignored that aspect after I had already sent that
> mail), the previous suggestion would still appear usable to me.

The requirement is having separate PMD mapping per NUMA node.  What
has been implemented is the simplest form of that - one mapping per
CPU.  Sure it can be further improved with more knowledge of the
topology.  If you're interested, please go ahead.

>>> This would additionally address a potential problem on 32-bits -
>>> currently, for a 32-CPU system you consume half of the vmalloc space
>>> with PAE (on non-PAE you'd even exhaust it, but I think it's
>>> unreasonable to expect a system having 32 CPUs to not need PAE).
>> I recall having about the same conversation before.  Looking up...
>>
>> -- QUOTE --
>>  Actually, I've been looking at the numbers and I'm not sure if the
>>  concern is valid.  On x86_32, the practical number of maximum
>>  processors would be around 16 so it will end up 32M, which isn't
>>  nice and it would probably a good idea to introduce a parameter to
>>  select which allocator to use but still it's far from consuming all
>>  the VM area.  On x86_64, the vmalloc area is obscenely large at 245,
>>  ie 32 terabytes.  Even with 4096 processors, single chunk is measly
>>  0.02%.
> 
> Just to note - there must be a reason we (SuSE/Novell) build our default
> 32-bit kernel with support for 128 CPUs, which now is simply broken.

It's not broken, it will just fall back to 4k allocator.  Also, please
take a look at the refreshed patchset, remap allocator is not used
anymore if it's gonna occupy more than 20% (random number from the top
of my head) of vmalloc area.

>> So, yeah, if there are 32bit 32-way NUMA machines out there, it would
>> be wise to skip remap allocator on such machines.  Maybe we can
>> implement a heuristic - something like "if vm area consumption goes
>> over 25%, don't use remap".
> 
> Possibly, as a secondary consideration on top of the suggested reduction
> of virtual address space consumption.

Yeah, further improvements welcome.  No objection whatsoever there.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/