linux-kernel - Re: [RFCv1 3/6] PASR: mm: Integrate PASR in Buddy 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F27DB7B.4010103@stericsson.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:15:55 +0100
From:	Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...ricsson.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Andrea GALLO <andrea.gallo@...ricsson.com>,
	Vincent GUITTOT <vincent.guittot@...ricsson.com>,
	Philippe LANGLAIS <philippe.langlais@...ricsson.com>,
	Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv1 3/6] PASR: mm: Integrate PASR in Buddy allocator

Hello Mel,
On 01/30/2012 05:52 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>
> On 01/30/2012 04:22 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
>> You may be able to use the existing arch_alloc_page() hook and
>> call PASR on architectures that support it if and only if PASR is
>> present and enabled by the administrator but even this is likely to be
>> unpopular as it'll have a measurable performance impact on platforms
>> with PASR (not to mention the PASR lock will be even heavier as it'll
>> now be also used for per-cpu page allocations). To get the hook you
>> want, you'd need to show significant benefit before they were happy with
>> the hook.
> Your proposal sounds good.
> AFAIK, per-cpu allocation maximum size is 32KB. Please correct me if 
> I'm wrong.
> Since pasr_kget/kput() calls the PASR framework only on MAX_ORDER 
> allocations, we wouldn't add any locking risks nor contention compared 
> to current patch.
> I will update the patch set using  arch_alloc/free_page().
>
I just had a deeper look at when arch_alloc_page() is called. I think it 
does not fit with PASR framework needs.
pasr_kget() calls pasr_get() only for max order pages (same for 
pasr_kput()) to avoid overhead.

In current patch set, pasr_kget() is called when pages are removed from 
the free lists, and pasr_kput() when pages are inserted in the free lists.
So, pasr_get() is called in case of :
     - allocation of a max order page
     - split of a max order page into lower order pages to fulfill 
allocation of pages smaller than max order
And pasr_put() is called in case of:
     - release of a max order page
     - coalescence of two "max order -1" pages when smaller pages are 
released

If we call the PASR framework in arch_alloc_page(), we have two 
possibilities:
     1) using pasr_kget(): the PASR framework will only be notified of 
max order allocations, so the coalesce/split of free pages case will not 
be taken into account.
     2) using pasr_get(): the PASR framework will be called for every 
orders of page allocation/release. The induced overhead is not acceptable.

To avoid calling pasr_kget/kput() directly in page_alloc.c, do you think 
adding some arch specific hooks when a page is inserted or removed from 
the free lists could be acceptable?
Something like arch_insert_freepage(struct page *page, int order) and 
arch_remove_freepage(struct page *page, int order).

Regards,
Maxime
--
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/