linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/43] mm: numa: Make pte_numa() and pmd

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: <20121116174853.GF8218@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:48:53 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/43] mm: numa: Make pte_numa() and pmd_numa() a generic
 implementation

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 06:12:43PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > > Why not use something what we have in numa/core already:
> > > 
> > >   f05ea0948708 mm/mpol: Create special PROT_NONE infrastructure
> > > 
> > 
> > Because it's hard-coded to PROT_NONE underneath which I've 
> > complained about before. [...]
> 
> To which I replied that this is the current generic 
> implementation, the moment some different architecture comes 
> around we can accomodate it - on a strictly as-needed basis.
> 

To which I responded that a new architecutre would have to retrofit and
then change callers like change_prot_none() which is more churn than should
be necessary to add architecture support.

> It is *better* and cleaner to not expose random arch hooks but 
> let the core kernel modification be documented in the very patch 
> that the architecture support patch makes use of it.
> 

And yours requires that arches define pmd_pgprot so there are additional
hooks anyway.

That said, your approach just ends up being heavier. Take this simple
case for what we need for pte_numa.

+static inline pgprot_t vma_prot_none(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{
+       /*
+        * obtain PROT_NONE by removing READ|WRITE|EXEC privs
+        */
+       vm_flags_t vmflags = vma->vm_flags & ~(VM_READ|VM_WRITE|VM_EXEC);
+       return pgprot_modify(vma->vm_page_prot, vm_get_page_prot(vmflags));
+}

...

+static bool pte_numa(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pte_t pte)
+{
+       /*
+        * For NUMA page faults, we use PROT_NONE ptes in VMAs with
+        * "normal" vma->vm_page_prot protections.  Genuine PROT_NONE
+        * VMAs should never get here, because the fault handling code
+        * will notice that the VMA has no read or write permissions.
+        *
+        * This means we cannot get 'special' PROT_NONE faults from genuine
+        * PROT_NONE maps, nor from PROT_WRITE file maps that do dirty
+        * tracking.
+        *
+        * Neither case is really interesting for our current use though so we
+        * don't care.
+        */
+       if (pte_same(pte, pte_modify(pte, vma->vm_page_prot)))
+               return false;
+
+       return pte_same(pte, pte_modify(pte, vma_prot_none(vma)));
+}

pte_numa requires a call to vma_prot_none which requires a function call
to vm_get_page_prot.

This is the _PAGE_NUMA equivalent.

+__weak int pte_numa(pte_t pte)
+{
+       return (pte_flags(pte) &
+               (_PAGE_NUMA|_PAGE_PRESENT)) == _PAGE_NUMA;
+}

If that was moved to inline as Linus suggests, it becomes one, maybe two
instructions.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/