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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:39:11 -0400 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, 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() On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:12:56AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > > 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. At least put a big fat comment in the patch saying: "This is based on research done by Alex, where ... This needs to be redone where it is automatically figured out based on the CPUID, but ." [include what Dan just said about breakeven point] > > 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. Comments are 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists