linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: cache largest vma

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: <CA+55aFwrtOaFtwGc6xyZH6-1j3f--AG1JS-iZM8-pZPnwRHBow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:51:27 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: cache largest vma

Ugh. This patch makes me angry. It looks way too ad-hoc.

I can well imagine that our current one-entry cache is crap and could
be improved, but this looks too random. Different code for the
CONFIG_MMU case? Same name, but for non-MMU it's a single entry, for
MMU it's an array? And the whole "largest" just looks odd. Plus why do
you set LAST_USED if you also set LARGEST?

Did you try just a two- or four-entry pseudo-LRU instead, with a
per-thread index for "last hit"? Or even possibly a small fixed-size
hash table (say "idx = (add >> 10) & 3" or something)?

And what happens for threaded models? Maybe we'd be much better off
making the cache be per-thread, and the flushing of the cache would be
a sequence number that has to match (so "vma_clear_cache()" ends up
just incrementing a 64-bit sequence number in the mm)?

Basically, my complaints boil down to "too random" and "too
specialized", and I can see (and you already comment on) this patch
being grown with even *more* ad-hoc random new cases (LAST, LARGEST,
MOST_USED - what's next?). And while I don't know if we should worry
about the threaded case, I do get the feeling that this ad-hoc
approach is guaranteed to never work for that, which makes me feel
that it's not just ad-hoc, it's also fundamentally limited.

I can see us merging this patch, but I would really like to hear that
we do so because other cleaner approaches don't work well. In
particular, pseudo-LRU tends to be successful (and cheap) for caches.

                 Linus
--
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/