linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: Implement vmalloc based thread

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, 26 May 2015 01:36:29 +0300
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@...s.arm.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"barami97@...il.com" <barami97@...il.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: Implement vmalloc based thread_info allocator

On 25 May 2015, at 23:29, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Monday 25 May 2015 19:47:15 Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On 25 May 2015, at 13:01, Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> Could the stack size be reduced to 8KB perhaps?
>>> 
>>> I guess probably not.
>>> 
>>> A commit, 845ad05e, says that 8KB is not enough to cover SpecWeb benchmark.
>> 
>> We could go back to 8KB stacks if we implement support for separate IRQ 
>> stack on arm64. It's not too complicated, we would have to use SP0 for (kernel) threads 
>> and SP1 for IRQ handlers.
> 
> I think most architectures that see a lot of benchmarks have moved to
> irqstacks at some point, that definitely sounds like a useful idea,
> even if the implementation turns out to be a bit more tricky than
> what you describe.

Of course, it's more complicated than just setting up two stacks (but I'm away for a 
week and writing from a phone). We would need to deal with the initial per-CPU setup, 
rescheduling following an IRQ, CPU on following power management and maybe 
other issues. However, the architecture helps us a bit by allowing both SP0 and SP1 to be 
used at EL1. 

> There are a lot of workloads that would benefit from having lower
> per-thread memory cost.

If we keep the 16KB stack, is there any advantage in a separate IRQ one (assuming 
that we won't overflow 16KB)?

Catalin--
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/