linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] mm/swap: Add cluster lock

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]

Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:51:50 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, <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>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] mm/swap: Add cluster lock

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:47:51 +0800 "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > 1MB swap space, so for 1TB swap space, the total size will be 80M
>> >> > compared with 8M of current implementation.
>> >
>> > Where did this 80 bytes come from?  That swap_cluster_info is 12 bytes
>> > and could perhaps be squeezed into 8 bytes if we can get away with a
>> > 24-bit "count".
>> 
>> Sorry, I made a mistake when measuring the size of swap_cluster_info
>> when I sent that email, because I turned on the lockdep when measuring.
>> I have sent out a correction email to Jonathan when I realized that
>> later.
>> 
>> So the latest size measuring result is:
>> 
>> If we use bit_spin_lock, the size of cluster_swap_info will,
>> 
>> - increased from 4 bytes to 8 bytes on 64 bit platform
>> - keep as 4 bytes on 32 bit platform
>> 
>> If we use normal spinlock (queue spinlock), the size of cluster_swap_info will,
>> 
>> - increased from 4 bytes to 8 bytes on 64 bit platform
>> - increased from 4 bytes to 8 bytes on 32 bit platform
>> 
>> So the difference occurs on 32 bit platform.  If the size increment on
>> 32 bit platform is OK, then I think it should be good to use normal
>> spinlock instead of bit_spin_lock.  Personally, I am OK for that.  But I
>> don't know whether there will be some embedded world people don't like
>> it.
>
> I think that'll be OK - the difference is small and many small systems
> disable swap anyway.  So can we please try that?  Please do describe
> the additional overhead (with numbers) in the changelog: "additional
> bytes of RAM per GB of swap", for example.  And please also rerun the
> performance tests, see if we can notice the alleged speed improvements
> from switching to a spinlock.

Sure.  I will change it and redo the test.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying