linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3 update] mm/free_pcppages_bulk: prefetch buddy while not holding 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:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:32:32 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3 update] mm/free_pcppages_bulk: prefetch buddy while
 not holding lock

On 03/09/2018 12:24 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> +			/*
> +			 * We are going to put the page back to the global
> +			 * pool, prefetch its buddy to speed up later access
> +			 * under zone->lock. It is believed the overhead of
> +			 * an additional test and calculating buddy_pfn here
> +			 * can be offset by reduced memory latency later. To
> +			 * avoid excessive prefetching due to large count, only
> +			 * prefetch buddy for the last pcp->batch nr of pages.
> +			 */
> +			if (count > pcp->batch)
> +				continue;
> +			pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> +			buddy_pfn = __find_buddy_pfn(pfn, 0);
> +			buddy = page + (buddy_pfn - pfn);
> +			prefetch(buddy);

FWIW, I think this needs to go into a helper function.  Is that possible?

There's too much logic happening here.  Also, 'count' going from
batch_size->0 is totally non-obvious from the patch context.  It makes
this hunk look totally wrong by itself.