linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] mm/swap: Regular page swap optimizations

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 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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2016 12:56:23 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <dave.hansen@...el.com>, <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        <aaron.lu@...el.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
        "Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] mm/swap: Regular page swap optimizations

Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 11:31:06AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> >>> > Frankly speaking, although I'm huge user of bit_spin_lock(zram/zsmalloc
>> >>> > have used it heavily), I don't like swap subsystem uses it.
>> >>> > During zram development, it really hurts debugging due to losing lockdep.
>> >>> > The reason zram have used it is by size concern of embedded world but server
>> >>> > would be not critical so please consider trade-off of spinlock vs. bit_spin_lock.
>> >>> 
>> >>> There will be one struct swap_cluster_info for every 1MB swap space.
>> >>> So, for example, for 1TB swap space, the number of struct
>> >>> swap_cluster_info will be one million.  To reduce the RAM usage, we
>> >>> choose to use bit_spin_lock, otherwise, spinlock is better.  The code
>> >>> will be used by embedded, PC and server, so the RAM usage is important.
>> >>
>> >> It seems you already increase swap_cluster_info 4 byte to support
>> >> bit_spin_lock.
>> >
>> > The increment only occurs on 64bit platform.  On 32bit platform, the
>> > size is the same as before.
>> >
>> >> Compared to that, how much memory does spin_lock increase?
>> >
>> > The size of struct swap_cluster_info will increase from 4 bytes to 16
>> > bytes on 64bit platform.  I guess it will increase from 4 bytes to 8
>> > bytes on 32bit platform at least, but I did not test that.
>> 
>> Sorry, I make a mistake during test.  The size of struct
>> swap_cluster_info will increase from 4 bytes to 8 bytes on 64 bit
>> platform.  I think it will increase from 4 bytes to 8 bytes on 32 bit
>> platform too (not tested).
>
> Thanks for the information.
> To me, it's not big when we consider spinlock's usefullness which helps
> cache-line bouncing, lockdep and happy with RT people.

Yes.  spinlock helps on lockdep and RT, but I don't think it helps
cache-line bouncing.

> So, I vote spin_lock but I'm not in charge of deciding on that and your
> opinion might be different still. If so, let's pass the decision to
> maintainer.

I have no strong opinion for size change on 32bit platform.  But I want
to know other people's opinion, especially maintainer's too.

> Instead, please write down above content in description for maintainer to
> judge it fairly.

Sure.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying