linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn

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: <20100713100034.GF29885@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:00:34 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Yakui Zhao <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:46:12AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:37:00AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > I prefer Kamezawa's suggestion of mapping on a ZERO_PAGE-like page full
> > of PageReserved struct pages because it would have better performance
> > and be more in line with maintaining the assumptions of the memory
> > model. If we go in this direction, I would strongly prefer it was an
> > ARM-only thing.
> 
> As I've said, this is not possible without doing some serious page
> manipulation.
> 

Yep, x86 used to do something like this for discontig. It wasn't pretty.

> Plus the pages that where there become unusable as they don't correspond
> with a PFN or obey phys_to_virt().  So there's absolutely no point to
> this.
> 
> Now, why do we free the holes in the mem_map - because these holes can
> be extremely large.  Every 512K of hole equates to one page of mem_map
> array.

Sure, the holes might be large but at least they are contiguous. Is
there ever a case where you have

512K_Valid 512K_Hole 512K_Valid 512K_Hole

or is it typically

512K_hole 512K_hole ...... 512K_Valid 512K_Valid etc

If holes are typically contiguos, memmap is not allocated in the first place
and the savings from punching holes in memmap in the latter configuration
are minimal.

I recognise if you have a 2M section with a hole in it, you are
potentially wasting 3 pages on unused memmap. If this is really a problem,
Minchan's modification to sparsemem to increase the size of mem_section on
CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL is a messy option. I say messy because
it only works if the hole is on either end of the section and it's adding
quirks to the memory model.

>  Balance that against memory placed at 0xc0000000 physical on
> some platforms, and with PHYSMEM_BITS at 32 and SECTION_SIZE_BITS at
> 19 - well, you do the maths.  The result is certainly not pretty.
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/