linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] powerpc/mm: Allow more than 16 low slices

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: <26a6d845-cf38-d8c6-5f54-a57ddb2a5a77@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:36:22 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] powerpc/mm: Allow more than 16 low slices



On 01/19/2018 02:29 PM, Christophe LEROY wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 19/01/2018 à 09:30, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
>>
>>> While the implementation of the "slices" address space allows
>>> a significant amount of high slices, it limits the number of
>>> low slices to 16 due to the use of a single u64 low_slices_psize
>>> element in struct mm_context_t
>>>
>>> On the 8xx, the minimum slice size is the size of the area
>>> covered by a single PMD entry, ie 4M in 4K pages mode and 64M in
>>> 16K pages mode. This means we could have resp. up to 1024 and 64
>>> slices.
>>>
>>> In order to override this limitation, this patch switches the
>>> handling of low_slices to BITMAPs as done already for high_slices.
>>
>> Does it have a performance impact. When we switched high_slices
>> that was one of the question asked. Now with a topdown search we should
>> mostly be using the high_slices. But it will good to get numbers for
>> ppc64 for this change.
> 
> It should have almost no performance impact at all, because all bitmap 
> functions used a simplified way when the number of bits is small and 
> constant:
> 
> -    ret->low_slices = 0;
> +    slice_bitmap_zero(ret->low_slices, SLICE_NUM_LOW);
> 
> 
> static inline void bitmap_zero(unsigned long *dst, unsigned int nbits)
> {
>      if (small_const_nbits(nbits))
>          *dst = 0UL;
>      else {
>          unsigned int len = BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits) * sizeof(unsigned long);
>          memset(dst, 0, len);
>      }
> }
> 
> 
> 
> -    dst->low_slices |= src->low_slices;
> +    slice_bitmap_or(dst->low_slices, dst->low_slices, src->low_slices,
> +            SLICE_NUM_LOW);
> 
> 
> static inline void bitmap_or(unsigned long *dst, const unsigned long *src1,
>              const unsigned long *src2, unsigned int nbits)
> {
>      if (small_const_nbits(nbits))
>          *dst = *src1 | *src2;
>      else
>          __bitmap_or(dst, src1, src2, nbits);
> }
> 
> 
>

may be capture that in commit message saying since we are 64 bit on 
ppc64 there is no impact there?

-aneesh