linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: create a separate slab for page->ptl allocation

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]

Date:	Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:01:45 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: create a separate slab for page->ptl allocation

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:53:59 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> If DEBUG_SPINLOCK and DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC are enabled spinlock_t on x86_64
> is 72 bytes. For page->ptl they will be allocated from kmalloc-96 slab,
> so we loose 24 on each. An average system can easily allocate few tens
> thousands of page->ptl and overhead is significant.
> 
> Let's create a separate slab for page->ptl allocation to solve this.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -4332,11 +4332,19 @@ void copy_user_huge_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src,
>  #endif /* CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE || CONFIG_HUGETLBFS */
>  
>  #if USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS
> +struct kmem_cache *page_ptl_cachep;
> +void __init ptlock_cache_init(void)
> +{
> +	if (sizeof(spinlock_t) > sizeof(long))
> +		page_ptl_cachep = kmem_cache_create("page->ptl",
> +				sizeof(spinlock_t), 0, SLAB_PANIC, NULL);
> +}

Confused.  If (sizeof(spinlock_t) > sizeof(long)) happens to be false
then the kernel will later crash.  It would be better to use BUILD_BUG_ON()
here, if that works.  Otherwise BUG_ON.

Also, we have the somewhat silly KMEM_CACHE() macro, but it looks
inapplicable here?

>  bool __ptlock_alloc(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	spinlock_t *ptl;
>  
> -	ptl = kmalloc(sizeof(spinlock_t), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	ptl = kmem_cache_alloc(page_ptl_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!ptl)
>  		return false;
>  	page->ptl = (unsigned long)ptl;
> @@ -4346,6 +4354,6 @@ bool __ptlock_alloc(struct page *page)
>  void __ptlock_free(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	if (sizeof(spinlock_t) > sizeof(page->ptl))
> -		kfree((spinlock_t *)page->ptl);
> +		kmem_cache_free(page_ptl_cachep, (spinlock_t *)page->ptl);

A void* cast would suffice here, but I suppose the spinlock_t* cast has
some documentation value.

--
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/