linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] thp: rewrite freeze_page()/unfreeze

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: <20160203144316.f01573516f186071bb2cf1bf@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 14:43:16 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] thp: rewrite freeze_page()/unfreeze_page() with
 generic rmap walkers

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 07:42:01 -0800 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:

> On 02/03/2016 07:14 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > But the new variant is somewhat slower. Current helpers iterates over
> > VMAs the compound page is mapped to, and then over ptes within this VMA.
> > New helpers iterates over small page, then over VMA the small page
> > mapped to, and only then find relevant pte.
> 
> The code simplification here is really attractive.  Can you quantify
> what the slowdown is?  Is it noticeable, or would it be in the noise
> during all the other stuff that happens under memory pressure?

yup.  And the "more testing is required" is a bit worrisome.  Is this
code really ready for getting pounded upon in -next?