linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Keep a separate lazy-free list

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: <20160415111431.GL19990@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2016 12:14:31 +0100
From:	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To:	Roman Peniaev <r.peniaev@...il.com>
Cc:	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Keep a separate lazy-free list

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:44:48PM +0200, Roman Peniaev wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 03:13:26PM +0200, Roman Peniaev wrote:
> >> Hi, Chris.
> >>
> >> Is it made on purpose not to drop VM_LAZY_FREE flag in
> >> __purge_vmap_area_lazy()?  With your patch va->flags
> >> will have two bits set: VM_LAZY_FREE | VM_LAZY_FREEING.
> >> Seems it is not that bad, because all other code paths
> >> do not care, but still the change is not clear.
> >
> > Oh, that was just a bad deletion.
> >
> >> Also, did you consider to avoid taking static purge_lock
> >> in __purge_vmap_area_lazy() ? Because, with your change
> >> it seems that you can avoid taking this lock at all.
> >> Just be careful when you observe llist as empty, i.e.
> >> nr == 0.
> >
> > I admit I only briefly looked at the lock. I will be honest and say I
> > do not fully understand the requirements of the sync/force_flush
> > parameters.
> 
> if sync:
>    o I can wait for other purge in progress
>       (do not care if purge_lock is dropped)
> 
>    o purge fragmented blocks
> 
> if force_flush:
>    o even nothing to purge, flush TLB, which is costly.
>     (again sync-like is implied)
> 
> > purge_fragmented_blocks() manages per-cpu lists, so that looks safe
> > under its own rcu_read_lock.
> >
> > Yes, it looks feasible to remove the purge_lock if we can relax sync.
> 
> what is still left is waiting on vmap_area_lock for !sync mode.
> but probably is not that bad.

Ok, that's bit beyond my comfort zone with a patch to change the free
list handling. I'll chicken out for the time being, atm I am more
concerned that i915.ko may call set_page_wb() frequently on individual
pages.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre