linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node

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: <20161222043331.31aab9cc@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:33:31 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 10:02:27 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, here's mine.. compiles and boots on a NUMA x86_64 machine.  
> 
> So I like how your patch is smaller, but your patch is also broken.
> 
> First off, the whole contention bit is *not* NUMA-specific. It should
> help non-NUMA too, by avoiding the stupid extra cache miss.
> 
> Secondly, CONFIG_NUMA is a broken thing to test anyway, since adding a
> bit for the NUMA case can overflow the page flags as far as I can tell
> (MIPS seems to support NUMA on 32-bit, for example, but I didn't
> really check the Kconfig details). Making it dependent on 64-bit might
> be ok (and would fix the issue above - I don't think we really need to
> care too much about 32-bit any more)
> 
> But making it conditional at all means that now you have those two
> different cases for this, which is a maintenance nightmare. So don't
> do it even if we could say "screw 32-bit".
> 
> Anyway, the conditional thing could be fixed by just taking Nick's
> patch 1/2, and your patch (with the conditional bits stripped out).
> 
> I do think your approach of just re-using the existing bit waiting
> with just a page-specific waiting function is nicer than Nick's "let's
> just roll new waiting functions" approach. It also avoids the extra
> initcall.
> 
> Nick, comments?

Well yes we should take my patch 1 and use the new bit for this
purpose regardless of what way we go with patch 2. I'll reply to
that in the other mail.

Thanks,
Nick