linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] slub: Only IPI CPUs that have per cpu obj to flush

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]

Date:	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:54:27 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] slub: Only IPI CPUs that have per cpu obj to flush

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com> wrote:
> Try to send IPI to flush per cpu objects back to free lists
> to CPUs to seems to have such objects.
>
> The check which CPU to IPI is racy but we don't care since
> asking a CPU without per cpu objects to flush does no
> damage and as far as I can tell the flush_all by itself is
> racy against allocs on remote CPUs anyway, so if you meant
> the flush_all to be determinstic, you had to arrange for
> locking regardless.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> CC: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
> CC: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
> CC: linux-mm@...ck.org
> CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
> CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
> CC: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
> ---
>  mm/slub.c |   15 ++++++++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 9f662d7..8baae30 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1948,7 +1948,20 @@ static void flush_cpu_slab(void *d)
>
>  static void flush_all(struct kmem_cache *s)
>  {
> -       on_each_cpu(flush_cpu_slab, s, 1);
> +       cpumask_var_t cpus;
> +       struct kmem_cache_cpu *c;
> +       int cpu;
> +
> +       if (likely(zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpus, GFP_ATOMIC))) {
> +               for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +                       c = per_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab, cpu);
> +                       if (c && c->page)
> +                               cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
> +               }
> +               on_each_cpu_mask(cpus, flush_cpu_slab, s, 1);
> +               free_cpumask_var(cpus);
> +       } else
> +               on_each_cpu(flush_cpu_slab, s, 1);
>  }

AFAICT, flush_all() isn't all that performance sensitive. Why do we
want to reduce IPIs here? Also, I'm somewhat unhappy about introducing
memory allocations in memory shrinking code paths. If we really want
to do this, can we preallocate cpumask in struct kmem_cache, for
example?

                        Pekka
--
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/