linux-kernel - Re: Use higher-order pages in vmalloc

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:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 08:16:22 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: Use higher-order pages in vmalloc

On 02/21/2018 07:42 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:55:32PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> Virtually mapped stack have two bonuses: it eats order-0 pages and
>> adds guard page at the end. But it slightly slower if system have
>> plenty free high-order pages.
>>
>> This patch adds option to use virtually bapped stack as fallback for
>> atomic allocation of traditional high-order page.
> This prompted me to write a patch I've been meaning to do for a while,
> allocating large pages if they're available to satisfy vmalloc.  I thought
> it would save on touching multiple struct pages, but it turns out that
> the checking code we currently have in the free_pages path requires you
> to have initialised all of the tail pages (maybe we can make that code
> conditional ...)

What the concept here?  If we can use high-order pages for vmalloc() at
the moment, we *should* use them?

One of the coolest things about vmalloc() is that it can do large
allocations without consuming large (high-order) pages, so it has very
few side-effects compared to doing a bunch of order-0 allocations.  This
patch seems to propose removing that cool thing.  Even trying the
high-order allocation could kick off a bunch of reclaim and compaction
that was not there previously.

If you could take this an only _opportunistically_ allocate large pages,
it could be a more universal win.  You could try to make sure that no
compaction or reclaim is done for the large allocation.  Or, maybe you
only try it if there are *only* high-order pages in the allocator that
would have been broken down into order-0 *anyway*.

I'm not sure it's worth it, though.  I don't see a lot of folks
complaining about vmalloc()'s speed or TLB impact.