linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Another go at speculative page faults

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: <20141022112925.GH30588@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:29:25 +0300
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, oleg@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	minchan@...nel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Another go at speculative page faults

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:34:49AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 23:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I figured I'd give my 2010 speculative fault series another spin:
> > 
> >   https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/4/257
> > 
> > Since then I think many of the outstanding issues have changed sufficiently to
> > warrant another go. In particular Al Viro's delayed fput seems to have made it
> > entirely 'normal' to delay fput(). Lai Jiangshan's SRCU rewrite provided us
> > with call_srcu() and my preemptible mmu_gather removed the TLB flushes from
> > under the PTL.
> > 
> > The code needs way more attention but builds a kernel and runs the
> > micro-benchmark so I figured I'd post it before sinking more time into it.
> > 
> > I realize the micro-bench is about as good as it gets for this series and not
> > very realistic otherwise, but I think it does show the potential benefit the
> > approach has.
> > 
> > (patches go against .18-rc1+)
> 
> I think patch 2/6 is borken:
> 
> error: patch failed: mm/memory.c:2025
> error: mm/memory.c: patch does not apply
> 
> and related, as you mention, I would very much welcome having the
> introduction of 'struct faut_env' as a separate cleanup patch. May I
> suggest renaming it to fault_cxt?

What about extend start using 'struct vm_fault' earlier by stack?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/