linux-kernel - Re: [RFC MM] Accessors for mm locking

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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911051555320.7668@V090114053VZO-1>
Date:	Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:57:23 -0500 (EST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	npiggin@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC MM] Accessors for mm locking

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:

> My assumption was that a suitable scalable lock (or rather multi locks)
> would need to know about the virtual address, or at least the VMA.
> As in doing range locking for different address space areas.

Not sure why the address would matter. The main problem right now is that
there are cachelines in mm_struct that are bouncing for concurrent page faults
etc. Ranges wont help if you need to serialize access to mm_struct.

> So this simple abstraction doesn't seem to be enough to really experiment?

Look at the next patch which gives a rough implementation of using per cpu
counters for read locking instead of the rw semaphore.
--
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/