linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/7] x86: rework tlb range flushing code

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20140310171118.7E16CD45@viggo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:11:18 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	alex.shi@...aro.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	davidlohr@...com, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Subject: [PATCH 0/7] x86: rework tlb range flushing code

Changes from v2:
 * Added a brief comment above the ceiling tunable
 * Updated the documentation to mention large pages and say
   "individual flush" instead of invlpg in most cases.

Reposting with an instrumentation patch, and a few minor tweaks.
I'd love some more eyeballs on this, but I think it's ready for
-mm.

I'm having it run through the LKP harness to see if any perfmance
regressions (or gains) show up.

Without the last (instrumentation/debugging) patch:

 arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h |    6 ++
 arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h   |    1
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c          |    7 --
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c       |   13 -----
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c        |   26 ----------
 arch/x86/mm/tlb.c                  |   91 +++++++++++++++----------------------
 include/linux/mm_types.h           |   10 ++++
 mm/Makefile                        |    2
 8 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)

--

I originally went to look at this becuase I realized that newer
CPUs were not present in the intel_tlb_flushall_shift_set() code.

I went to try to figure out where to stick newer CPUs (do we
consider them more like SandyBridge or IvyBridge), and was not
able to repeat the original experiments.

Instead, this set does:
 1. Rework the code a bit to ready it for tracepoints
 2. Add tracepoints
 3. Add a new tunable and set it to a sane 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/