linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] zap_pte_range: update addr when forcing flush after TLB batching faiure

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: <1414530994.29180.19.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:16:34 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] zap_pte_range: update addr when forcing flush
 after TLB batching faiure

On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 09:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > Since we have hardware broadcasting of TLB invalidations on ARM, it is
> > in our interest to keep the number of outstanding operations as small as
> > possible, particularly on large systems where we don't get the targetted
> > shootdown with a single message that you can perform using IPIs (i.e.
> > you can only broadcast to all or no CPUs, and that happens for each pte).
> 
> Do you seriously *have* to broadcast for each pte?

We do too, in current CPUs at least, it's sad ...

> Because that is quite frankly moronic.  We batch things up in software
> for a real good reason: doing things one entry at a time just cannot
> ever scale. At some point (and that point is usually not even very far
> away), it's much better to do a single invalidate over a range. The
> cost of having to refill the TLB's is *much* smaller than the cost of
> doing tons of cross-CPU invalidates.
> 
> That's true even for the cases where we track the CPU's involved in
> that mapping, and only invalidate a small subset. With a "all CPU's
> broadcast", the cross-over point must be even smaller. Doing thousands
> of CPU broadcasts is just crazy, even if they are hw-accelerated.
> 
> Can't you just do a full invalidate and a SW IPI for larger ranges?

For us, this would be great except ... we can potentially have other
agents with an MMU that only support snooping of the broadcasts...

> And as mentioned, true sparse mappings are actually fairly rare, so
> making extra effort (and data structures) to have individual ranges
> sounds crazy.
> 
> Is this some hw-enforced thing? You really can't turn off the
> cross-cpu-for-each-pte braindamage?

Cheers,
Ben.

>                          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/


--
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/