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:	Wed, 23 May 2012 19:09:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, borislav.petkov@....com,
	arnd@...db.de, akinobu.mita@...il.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, hughd@...gle.com,
	jeremy@...p.org, len.brown@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	yongjie.ren@...el.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com, penberg@...nel.org,
	yinghai@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	ak@...ux.intel.com, luto@....edu, avi@...hat.com,
	dhowells@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com,
	cpw@....com, steiner@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 8/8] x86/tlb: just do tlb flush on one of siblings
 of SMT

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 16:05 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 23.05.12 at 16:15, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
> > +	/* doing flush on both siblings of SMT is just wasting time */
> > +	cpumask_copy(&flush_mask, cpumask);
> > +	if (likely(smp_num_siblings > 1)) {
> > +		rand = jiffies;
> > +		/* See "Numerical Recipes in C", second edition, p. 284 */
> > +		rand = rand * 1664525L + 1013904223L;
> > +		rand &= 0x1;
> > +
> > +		for_each_cpu(cpu, &flush_mask) {
> > +			sblmask = cpu_sibling_mask(cpu);
> > +			if (cpumask_subset(sblmask, &flush_mask)) {
> > +				if (rand == 0)
> > +					cpu_clear(cpu, flush_mask);
> > +				else
> > +					cpu_clear(cpumask_next(cpu, sblmask),
> > +								flush_mask);
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> There is no comment or anything else indicating that this is
> suitable for dual-thread CPUs only - when there are more than
> 2 threads per core, the intended effect won't be achieved.

Why would that be? Won't higher thread count still share the same
resources just more so?

>  I'd
> recommend making the logic generic from the beginning, but if
> that doesn't seem feasible to you, at least a comment stating
> the limitation should be added imo.

My objection to the whole lot is that its looks mightily expensive on
large machines, cpumask operations aren't cheap when you've got 4k cpus
etc..

Also, you very much cannot put cpumask_t on stack.

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists