linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add local_tlb_flush_kernel

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: <90bcc2c8-bcac-4620-b3c0-6b65f8d9174d@default>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add local_tlb_flush_kernel_range()

> From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@...nel.org]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add local_tlb_flush_kernel_range()
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On 06/27/2012 03:14 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> > On 06/27/2012 01:53 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/26/2012 01:14 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> >>
> >>> This patch adds support for a local_tlb_flush_kernel_range()
> >>> function for the x86 arch.  This function allows for CPU-local
> >>> TLB flushing, potentially using invlpg for single entry flushing,
> >>> using an arch independent function name.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyway, we don't matter INVLPG_BREAK_EVEN_PAGES's optimization point is 8 or something.
> >
> >
> > Different CPU type has different balance point on the invlpg replacing
> > flush all. and some CPU never get benefit from invlpg, So, it's better
> > to use different value for different CPU, not a fixed
> > INVLPG_BREAK_EVEN_PAGES.
> 
> I think it could be another patch as further step and someone who are
> very familiar with architecture could do better than.
> So I hope it could be merged if it doesn't have real big problem.
> 
> Thanks for the comment, Alex.

Just my opinion, but I have to agree with Alex.  Hardcoding
behavior that is VERY processor-specific is a bad idea.  TLBs should
only be messed with when absolutely necessary, not for the
convenience of defending an abstraction that is nice-to-have
but, in current OS kernel code, unnecessary.

IIUC, zsmalloc only cares that the breakeven point is greater
than two.  An arch-specific choice of (A) two page flushes
vs (B) one all-TLB flush should be all that is necessary right
now.  (And, per separate discussion, even this isn't really
necessary either.)

If zsmalloc _ever_ gets extended to support items that might
span three or more pages, a more generic TLB flush-pages-vs-flush-all
approach may be warranted and, by then, may already exist in some
future kernel.  Until then, IMHO, keep it simple.
--
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/