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  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, 07 Oct 2014 21:37:38 +0530
From:	PINTU KUMAR <pintu.k@...sung.com>
To:	'Colin Cross' <ccross@...roid.com>
Cc:	'Laura Abbott' <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
	'Heesub Shin' <heesub.shin@...sung.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	john.stultz@...aro.org, rebecca@...roid.com,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	'IQBAL SHAREEF' <iqbal.ams@...sung.com>,
	pintu_agarwal@...oo.com,
	'Vishnu Pratap Singh' <vishnu.ps@...sung.com>,
	cpgs@...sung.com
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [ion]: system-heap use PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER for
 high order

----- Original Message -----
> From: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
> To: pintu.k@...sung.com
> Cc: Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>; Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>; "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>; "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>; "john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>; "rebecca@...roid.com" <rebecca@...roid.com>; "devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>; "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; IQBAL SHAREEF <iqbal.ams@...sung.com>; "pintu_agarwal@...oo.com" <pintu_agarwal@...oo.com>; Vishnu Pratap Singh <vishnu.ps@...sung.com>; "cpgs@...sung.com" <cpgs@...sung.com>
> Sent: Monday, 6 October 2014 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [ion]: system-heap use PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER for high order
> 
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:26 AM, PINTU KUMAR <pintu.k@...sung.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>
>> >To: Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>; Pintu Kumar 
> <pintu.k@...sung.com>; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; 
> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; john.stultz@...aro.org; rebecca@...roid.com; 
> ccross@...roid.com; devel@...verdev.osuosl.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> >Cc: iqbal.ams@...sung.com; pintu_agarwal@...oo.com; 
> vishnu.ps@...sung.com
>> >Sent: Monday, 6 October 2014 7:37 PM
>> >Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [ion]: system-heap use PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER 
> for high order
>> >
>> >
>> >On 10/6/2014 3:27 AM, Heesub Shin wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hello Kumar,
>> >>
>> >> On 10/06/2014 05:31 PM, Pintu Kumar wrote:
>> >>> The Android ion_system_heap uses allocation fallback mechanism
>> >>> based on 8,4,0 order pages available in the system.
>> >>> It changes gfp flags based on higher order allocation request.
>> >>> This higher order value is hard-coded as 4, instead of using
>> >>> the system defined higher order value.
>> >>> Thus replacing this hard-coded value with 
> PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER
>> >>> which is defined as 3.
>> >>> This will help mapping the higher order request in system heap 
> with
>> >>> the actual allocation request.
>> >>
>> >> Quite reasonable.
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>
>> >>
>> >> BTW, Anyone knows how the allocation order (8,4 and 0) was 
> decided? I
>> >> think only Google guys might know the answer.
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >> heesub
>> >>
>> >
>> >My understanding was this was completely unrelated to the costly order
>> >and was related to the page sizes corresponding to IOMMU page sizes
>> >(1MB, 64K, 4K). This won't make a difference for the uncached page
>> >pool case but for the not page pool case, I'm not sure if there 
> would
>> >be a benefit for trying to get 32K pages with some effort vs. just
>> >going back to 4K pages.
>> 
>> No, it is not just related to IOMMU case. It comes into picture also for
>> normal system-heap allocation (without iommu cases).
>> Also, it is applicable for both uncached and page_pool cases.
>> Please also check the changes under ion_system_heap_create.
>> Here the gfp_flags are set under the pool structure.
>> This value is used in ion_page_pool_alloc_pages.
>> In both the cases, it internally calls alloc_pages, with this gfp_flags.
>> Now, during memory pressure scenario, when alloc_pages moves to slowpath
>> this gfp_flags will be used to decide allocation retry.
>> In the current code, the higher-order flag is set only when order is 
> greater than 4.
>> But, in MM, the order 4 is also considered as higher-order request.
>> This higher-order is decided based on PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER (3) value.
>> Hence, I think this value should be in sync with the MM code.
>> >
>> >Do you have any data/metrics that show a benefit from this patch?
>> I think it is not related to any data or metrics.
>> It is about replacing the hard-coded higher-order check to be in sync with
>> the MM code.
>> 
> 
> The selection of the orders used for allocation (8, then 4, then 0) is
> designed to match with the sizes often found in IOMMUs, but this isn't
> changing the order of the allocation, it is changing the GFP flags
> used for the order 4 allocation.  Right now we are using the
> low_order_gfp_flags for order 4, this patch would change it to use
> high_order_gfp_flags.  We originally used low_order_gfp_flags here
> because the MM subsystem can usually satisfy these allocations, and
> the additional load placed on the MM subsystem to kick off kswapd to
> free up more order 4 chunks is generally worth it.  Using order 4
> pages instead of order 0 pages can significantly improve the
> performance of many IOMMUs by reducing TLB pressure and time spent
> updating page tables.  Unless you have data showing that this improves
> something, and doesn't just cause all allocations to be order 0 when
> under memory pressure, I don't suggest merging this.
>

Ok agree. It is worth retrying the allocation with order-4 pages.
But, since 4 is considered higher order for MM and is greater than PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER.
I guess the retrying will not happen, because of the following check in page_alloc:
if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
	goto nopage;



--
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