linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd

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: <1377274448.10300.777.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:14:08 -0600
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei.yes@...il.com>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	robert.moore@...el.com, lv.zheng@...el.com, rjw@...k.pl,
	lenb@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, trenn@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org,
	jiang.liu@...wei.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org, mina86@...a86.com,
	gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com,
	lwoodman@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
	prarit@...hat.com, zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com,
	yanghy@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd_override() earlier.

Hello,

On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 09:04 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:17:41PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > I am relatively new to Linux, so I am not a good person to elaborate
> > this.  From my experience on other OS, huge pages helped for the kernel,
> > but did not necessarily help user applications.  It depended on
> > applications, which were not niche cases.  But Linux may be different,
> > so I asked since you seemed confident.  I'd appreciate if you can point
> > us some data that endorses your statement.
> 
> We are talking about the kernel linear mapping which is created during
> early boot, so if it's available and useable there's no reason not to
> use it.  Exceptions would be earlier processors which didn't do 1G
> mappings or e820 maps with a lot of holes.  For CPUs used in NUMA
> configurations, the former has been history for a bit now.  Can't be
> sure about the latter but it'd be surprising for that to affect large
> amount of memory in the systems that are of interest here.  Ooh, that
> reminds me that we probably wanna go back to 1G + MTRR mapping under
> 4G.  We're currently creating a lot of mapping holes.

Thanks for the explanation.

> > My worry is that the code is unlikely tested with the special logic when
> > someone makes code changes to the page tables.  Such code can easily be
> > broken in future.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't consider flipping the direction of allocation to be
> particularly difficult to get right especially when compared to
> bringing in ACPI tables into the mix.
> 
> > To answer your other question/email, I believe Tang's next step is to
> > support local page tables.  This is why we think pursing SRAT earlier is
> > the right direction.
> 
> Given 1G mappings, is that even a worthwhile effort?  I'm getting even
> more more skeptical.

With 1G mappings, I agree that it won't make much difference.

I still think acpi table info should be available earlier, but I do not
think I can convince you on this.  This can be religious debate.

Tang, what do you think?  Are you OK to try Tejun's suggestion as well? 

Thanks,
-Toshi

--
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/