linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: limit mmu_gather batching to fix soft lockups on !CONFIG

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: <20121220122746.72d889fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:27:46 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: limit mmu_gather batching to fix soft lockups on
 !CONFIG_PREEMPT

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:10 +0100
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:

> > > + */
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT)
> > > +#define MAX_GATHER_BATCH_COUNT	(UINT_MAX)
> > > +#else
> > > +#define MAX_GATHER_BATCH_COUNT	(((1UL<<(30-PAGE_SHIFT))/MAX_GATHER_BATCH))
> > 
> > Geeze.  I spent waaaaay too long staring at that expression trying to
> > work out "how many pages is in a batch" and gave up.
> > 
> > Realistically, I don't think we need to worry about CONFIG_PREEMPT here
> > - if we just limit the thing to, say, 64k pages per batch then that
> > will be OK for preemptible and non-preemptible kernels. 
> 
> I wanted the fix to be as non-intrusive as possible so I didn't want to
> touch PREEMPT (which is default in many configs) at all. I am OK to a
> single limit of course.

non-intrusive is nice, but best-implementation is nicer.

> > The performance difference between "64k" and "infinite" will be
> > miniscule and unmeasurable.
> > 
> > Also, the batch count should be independent of PAGE_SIZE.  Because
> > PAGE_SIZE can vary by a factor of 16 and you don't want to fix the
> > problem on 4k page size but leave it broken on 64k page size.
> 
> MAX_GATHER_BATCH depends on the page size so I didn't want to differ
> without a good reason.

There's a good reason!  PAGE_SIZE can vary by a factor of 16, and if
this results in the unpreemptible-CPU-effort varying by a factor of 16
then that's bad, and we should change things so the
unpreemptible-CPU-effort is independent of PAGE_SIZE.


--
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/