| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130716103857.GH3421@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 05:38:58 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Nate Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] Sparse initialization of struct page array.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 02:30:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:03:55 -0500 Robin Holt <holt@....com> wrote:
>
> > During boot of large memory machines, a significant portion of boot
> > is spent initializing the struct page array. The vast majority of
> > those pages are not referenced during boot.
> >
> > Change this over to only initializing the pages when they are
> > actually allocated.
> >
> > Besides the advantage of boot speed, this allows us the chance to
> > use normal performance monitoring tools to determine where the bulk
> > of time is spent during page initialization.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -1330,8 +1330,19 @@ static inline void __free_reserved_page(struct page *page)
> > __free_page(page);
> > }
> >
> > +extern void __reserve_bootmem_region(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end);
> > +
> > +static inline void __reserve_bootmem_page(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > + phys_addr_t start = page_to_pfn(page) << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + phys_addr_t end = start + PAGE_SIZE;
> > +
> > + __reserve_bootmem_region(start, end);
> > +}
>
> It isn't obvious that this needed to be inlined?
It is being declared in a header file. All the other functions I came
across in that header file are declared as inline (or __always_inline).
It feels to me like this is right. Can I leave it as-is?
>
> > static inline void free_reserved_page(struct page *page)
> > {
> > + __reserve_bootmem_page(page);
> > __free_reserved_page(page);
> > adjust_managed_page_count(page, 1);
> > }
> > diff --git a/include/linux/page-flags.h b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > index 6d53675..79e8eb7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ enum pageflags {
> > PG_owner_priv_1, /* Owner use. If pagecache, fs may use*/
> > PG_arch_1,
> > PG_reserved,
> > + PG_uninitialized2mib, /* Is this the right spot? ntz - Yes - rmh */
>
> "mib" creeps me out too. And it makes me think of SNMP, which I'd
> prefer not to think about.
>
> We've traditionally had fears of running out of page flags, but I've
> lost track of how close we are to that happening. IIRC the answer
> depends on whether you believe there is such a thing as a 32-bit NUMA
> system.
>
> Can this be avoided anyway? I suspect there's some idiotic combination
> of flags we could use to indicate the state. PG_reserved|PG_lru or
> something.
>
> "2MB" sounds terribly arch-specific. Shouldn't we make it more generic
> for when the hexagon64 port wants to use 4MB?
>
> That conversational code comment was already commented on, but it's
> still there?
I am going to work on making it non-2m based over the course of this
week, so expect the _2m (current name based on Yinghai's comments)
to go away entirely.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -740,6 +740,54 @@ static void __init_single_page(struct page *page, unsigned long zone, int nid, i
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > +static void expand_page_initialization(struct page *basepage)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(basepage);
> > + unsigned long end_pfn = pfn + PTRS_PER_PMD;
> > + unsigned long zone = page_zonenum(basepage);
> > + int reserved = PageReserved(basepage);
> > + int nid = page_to_nid(basepage);
> > +
> > + ClearPageUninitialized2Mib(basepage);
> > +
> > + for( pfn++; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++ )
> > + __init_single_page(pfn_to_page(pfn), zone, nid, reserved);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void ensure_pages_are_initialized(unsigned long start_pfn,
> > + unsigned long end_pfn)
>
> I think this can be made static. I hope so, as it's a somewhat
> odd-sounding identifier for a global.
Done.
> > +{
> > + unsigned long aligned_start_pfn = start_pfn & ~(PTRS_PER_PMD - 1);
> > + unsigned long aligned_end_pfn;
> > + struct page *page;
> > +
> > + aligned_end_pfn = end_pfn & ~(PTRS_PER_PMD - 1);
> > + aligned_end_pfn += PTRS_PER_PMD;
> > + while (aligned_start_pfn < aligned_end_pfn) {
> > + if (pfn_valid(aligned_start_pfn)) {
> > + page = pfn_to_page(aligned_start_pfn);
> > +
> > + if(PageUninitialized2Mib(page))
>
> checkpatch them, please.
Will certainly do.
> > + expand_page_initialization(page);
> > + }
> > +
> > + aligned_start_pfn += PTRS_PER_PMD;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> Some nice code comments for the above two functions would be helpful.
Will do.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +int __meminit pfn_range_init_avail(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long end_pfn,
> > + unsigned long size, int nid)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long validate_end_pfn = pfn + size;
> > +
> > + if (pfn & (size - 1))
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + if (pfn + size >= end_pfn)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + while (pfn < validate_end_pfn)
> > + {
> > + if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn))
> > + return 1;
> > + if (!early_pfn_in_nid(pfn, nid))
> > + return 1;
> > + pfn++;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return size;
> > +}
>
> Document it, please. The return value semantics look odd, so don't
> forget to explain all that as well.
Will do. Will also work on the name to make it more clear what we
are returning.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > @@ -6196,6 +6302,7 @@ static const struct trace_print_flags pageflag_names[] = {
> > {1UL << PG_owner_priv_1, "owner_priv_1" },
> > {1UL << PG_arch_1, "arch_1" },
> > {1UL << PG_reserved, "reserved" },
> > + {1UL << PG_uninitialized2mib, "Uninit_2MiB" },
>
> It would be better if the name which is visible in procfs matches the
> name in the kernel source code.
Done and will try to maintain the consistency.
> > {1UL << PG_private, "private" },
> > {1UL << PG_private_2, "private_2" },
> > {1UL << PG_writeback, "writeback" },
Robin
--
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