linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size

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: <20151103185050.GJ7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:50:50 +0000
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>,
	Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@...ium.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:05:05PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:07:06PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Catalin Marinas
> >> > <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:59:48PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> >> > >> From: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@...ium.com>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Increase the standard cacheline size to avoid having locks in the same
> >> > >> cacheline.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Cavium's ThunderX core implements cache lines of 128 byte size. With
> >> > >> current granulare size of 64 bytes (L1_CACHE_SHIFT=6) two locks could
> >> > >> share the same cache line leading a performance degradation.
> >> > >> Increasing the size fixes that.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Increasing the size has no negative impact to cache invalidation on
> >> > >> systems with a smaller cache line. There is an impact on memory usage,
> >> > >> but that's not too important for arm64 use cases.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@...ium.com>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > Applied. Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > This patch causes a BUG() on r8a7795/salvator-x, for which support is not
> >> > yet upstream.
> >> >
> >> > My config (attached) uses SLAB. If I switch to SLUB, it works.
> >> > The arm64 defconfig works, even if I switch from SLUB to SLAB.
> >> [...]
> >> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> > kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2283!
> >> > Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMP
> >> [...]
> >> > Call trace:
> >> > [<ffffffc00014f9b4>] __kmem_cache_create+0x21c/0x280
> >> > [<ffffffc00068be50>] create_boot_cache+0x4c/0x80
> >> > [<ffffffc00068bed8>] create_kmalloc_cache+0x54/0x88
> >> > [<ffffffc00068bfc0>] create_kmalloc_caches+0x50/0xf4
> >> > [<ffffffc00068db08>] kmem_cache_init+0x104/0x118
> >> > [<ffffffc00067d7d8>] start_kernel+0x218/0x33c
> >>
> >> I haven't managed to reproduce this on a Juno kernel.
> >
> > I now managed to reproduce it with your config (slightly adapted to
> > allow Juno). I'll look into it.
> 
> Good to hear that!
> 
> BTW, I see this:
> 
>         freelist_size = 32
>         cache_line_size() = 64
> 
> It seems like the value returned by cache_line_size() in
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h disagrees with L1_CACHE_SHIFT  == 7:
> 
>         static inline int cache_line_size(void)
>         {
>                 u32 cwg = cache_type_cwg();
>                 return cwg ? 4 << cwg : L1_CACHE_BYTES;
>         }
> 
> Making cache_line_size() always return L1_CACHE_BYTES doesn't help.

(cc'ing Jonsoo and Christoph; summary: slab failure with L1_CACHE_BYTES
of 128 and sizeof(kmem_cache_node) of 152)

If I revert commit 8fc9cf420b36 ("slab: make more slab management
structure off the slab") it works but I still need to figure out how
slab indices are calculated. The size_index[] array is overridden so
that 0..15 are 7 and 16..23 are 8. But the kmalloc_caches[7] has never
been populated, hence the BUG_ON. Another option may be to change
kmalloc_size and kmalloc_index to cope with KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE of 128.

I'll do some more investigation tomorrow.

-- 
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/