linux-kernel - Re: [PATH] z3fold: extend compaction function

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: <CALZtONAJLTJikY1Nr0GUa9MPkfWcnaygXKzvy-RwJ_7dp2-sWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:17:26 -0500
From:   Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATH] z3fold: extend compaction function

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> wrote:
>> z3fold_compact_page() currently only handles the situation when
>> there's a single middle chunk within the z3fold page. However it
>> may be worth it to move middle chunk closer to either first or
>> last chunk, whichever is there, if the gap between them is big
>> enough.
>>
>> This patch adds the relevant code, using BIG_CHUNK_GAP define as
>> a threshold for middle chunk to be worth moving.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
>
> with the bikeshedding comments below, looks good.
>
> Acked-by: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
>
>> ---
>>  mm/z3fold.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/z3fold.c b/mm/z3fold.c
>> index 4d02280..fea6791 100644
>> --- a/mm/z3fold.c
>> +++ b/mm/z3fold.c
>> @@ -250,26 +250,60 @@ static void z3fold_destroy_pool(struct z3fold_pool *pool)
>>         kfree(pool);
>>  }
>>
>> +static inline void *mchunk_memmove(struct z3fold_header *zhdr,
>> +                               unsigned short dst_chunk)
>> +{
>> +       void *beg = zhdr;
>> +       return memmove(beg + (dst_chunk << CHUNK_SHIFT),
>> +                      beg + (zhdr->start_middle << CHUNK_SHIFT),
>> +                      zhdr->middle_chunks << CHUNK_SHIFT);
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define BIG_CHUNK_GAP  3
>>  /* Has to be called with lock held */
>>  static int z3fold_compact_page(struct z3fold_header *zhdr)
>>  {
>>         struct page *page = virt_to_page(zhdr);
>> -       void *beg = zhdr;
>> +       int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +       if (test_bit(MIDDLE_CHUNK_MAPPED, &page->private))
>> +               goto out;
>>
>> +       if (zhdr->middle_chunks != 0) {
>
> bikeshed: this check could be moved up also, as if there's no middle
> chunk there is no compacting to do and we can just return 0.  saves a
> tab in all the code below.
>
>> +               if (zhdr->first_chunks == 0 && zhdr->last_chunks == 0) {
>> +                       mchunk_memmove(zhdr, 1); /* move to the beginning */
>> +                       zhdr->first_chunks = zhdr->middle_chunks;
>> +                       zhdr->middle_chunks = 0;
>> +                       zhdr->start_middle = 0;
>> +                       zhdr->first_num++;
>> +                       ret = 1;
>> +                       goto out;
>> +               }
>>
>> -       if (!test_bit(MIDDLE_CHUNK_MAPPED, &page->private) &&
>> -           zhdr->middle_chunks != 0 &&
>> -           zhdr->first_chunks == 0 && zhdr->last_chunks == 0) {
>> -               memmove(beg + ZHDR_SIZE_ALIGNED,
>> -                       beg + (zhdr->start_middle << CHUNK_SHIFT),
>> -                       zhdr->middle_chunks << CHUNK_SHIFT);
>> -               zhdr->first_chunks = zhdr->middle_chunks;
>> -               zhdr->middle_chunks = 0;
>> -               zhdr->start_middle = 0;
>> -               zhdr->first_num++;
>> -               return 1;
>> +               /*
>> +                * moving data is expensive, so let's only do that if
>> +                * there's substantial gain (at least BIG_CHUNK_GAP chunks)
>> +                */
>> +               if (zhdr->first_chunks != 0 && zhdr->last_chunks == 0 &&
>> +                   zhdr->start_middle > zhdr->first_chunks + BIG_CHUNK_GAP) {
>> +                       mchunk_memmove(zhdr, zhdr->first_chunks + 1);
>> +                       zhdr->start_middle = zhdr->first_chunks + 1;
>> +                       ret = 1;
>> +                       goto out;
>> +               }
>> +               if (zhdr->last_chunks != 0 && zhdr->first_chunks == 0 &&
>> +                   zhdr->middle_chunks + zhdr->last_chunks <=
>> +                   NCHUNKS - zhdr->start_middle - BIG_CHUNK_GAP) {
>> +                       unsigned short new_start = NCHUNKS - zhdr->last_chunks -
>> +                               zhdr->middle_chunks;

after closer review, I see that this is wrong.  NCHUNKS isn't the
total number of page chunks, it's the total number of chunks minus the
header chunk(s).  so that calculation of where the new start is, is
wrong.  it should use the total page chunks, not the NCHUNKS, because
start_middle already accounts for the header chunk(s).  Probably a new
macro would help.

Also, the num_free_chunks() function makes the same mistake:

int nfree_after = zhdr->last_chunks ?
  0 : NCHUNKS - zhdr->start_middle - zhdr->middle_chunks;

that's wrong, it should be something like:

#define TOTAL_CHUNKS (PAGE_SIZE >> CHUNK_SHIFT)
...
int nfree_after = zhdr->last_chunks ?
  0 : TOTAL_CHUNKS - zhdr->start_middle - zhdr->middle_chunks;


>> +                       mchunk_memmove(zhdr, new_start);
>> +                       zhdr->start_middle = new_start;
>> +                       ret = 1;
>> +                       goto out;
>> +               }
>>         }
>> -       return 0;
>> +out:
>> +       return ret;
>
> bikeshed: do we need all the goto out?  why not just return 0/1
> appropriately above?
>
>>  }
>>
>>  /**
>> --
>> 2.4.2