| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180330014340.GB14446@WeideMacBook-Pro.local>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:43:40 +0800
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To: Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>,
Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>,
Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>,
YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm: page_alloc: reduce unnecessary binary search
in memblock_next_valid_pfn()
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 04:06:38PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
>
>
>On 3/28/2018 5:26 PM, Wei Yang Wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 08:02:16PM -0700, Jia He wrote:
>> > Commit b92df1de5d28 ("mm: page_alloc: skip over regions of invalid pfns
>> > where possible") optimized the loop in memmap_init_zone(). But there is
>> > still some room for improvement. E.g. if pfn and pfn+1 are in the same
>> > memblock region, we can simply pfn++ instead of doing the binary search
>> > in memblock_next_valid_pfn. This patch only works when
>> > CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID is enable.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
>> > ---
>> > include/linux/memblock.h | 2 +-
>> > mm/memblock.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> > mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +-
>> > 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
>> > index efbbe4b..a8fb2ab 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
>> > @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ void __next_mem_pfn_range(int *idx, int nid, unsigned long *out_start_pfn,
>> > #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP */
>> >
>> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
>> > -unsigned long memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn);
>> > +unsigned long memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn, int *idx);
>> > #endif
>> >
>> > /**
>> > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
>> > index bea5a9c..06c1a08 100644
>> > --- a/mm/memblock.c
>> > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
>> > @@ -1102,35 +1102,6 @@ void __init_memblock __next_mem_pfn_range(int *idx, int nid,
>> > *out_nid = r->nid;
>> > }
>> >
>> > -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
>> > -unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn)
>> > -{
>> > - struct memblock_type *type = &memblock.memory;
>> > - unsigned int right = type->cnt;
>> > - unsigned int mid, left = 0;
>> > - phys_addr_t addr = PFN_PHYS(++pfn);
>> > -
>> > - do {
>> > - mid = (right + left) / 2;
>> > -
>> > - if (addr < type->regions[mid].base)
>> > - right = mid;
>> > - else if (addr >= (type->regions[mid].base +
>> > - type->regions[mid].size))
>> > - left = mid + 1;
>> > - else {
>> > - /* addr is within the region, so pfn is valid */
>> > - return pfn;
>> > - }
>> > - } while (left < right);
>> > -
>> > - if (right == type->cnt)
>> > - return -1UL;
>> > - else
>> > - return PHYS_PFN(type->regions[right].base);
>> > -}
>> > -#endif /*CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID*/
>> > -
>> > /**
>> > * memblock_set_node - set node ID on memblock regions
>> > * @base: base of area to set node ID for
>> > @@ -1162,6 +1133,50 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_set_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
>> > }
>> > #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP */
>> >
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
>> > +unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn,
>> > + int *last_idx)
>> > +{
>> > + struct memblock_type *type = &memblock.memory;
>> > + unsigned int right = type->cnt;
>> > + unsigned int mid, left = 0;
>> > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
>> > + phys_addr_t addr = PFN_PHYS(++pfn);
>> > +
>> > + /* fast path, return pfh+1 if next pfn is in the same region */
>> ^^^ pfn
>Thanks
>> > + if (*last_idx != -1) {
>> > + start_pfn = PFN_DOWN(type->regions[*last_idx].base);
>> To me, it should be PFN_UP().
>hmm.., seems all the base of memory region is pfn aligned (0x10000 aligned).
>So
>
>PFN_UP is the same as PFN_DOWN here?
>I got this logic from memblock_search_pfn_nid()
Ok, I guess here hide some buggy code.
When you look at __next_mem_pfn_range(), it uses PFN_UP() for base. The reason
is try to clip some un-page-aligned memory. While PFN_DOWN() will introduce
some unavailable memory to system.
Even mostly those address are page-aligned, we need to be careful for this.
Let me drop a patch to fix the original one.
>
>Cheers,
>Jia
>
>>
>> > + end_pfn = PFN_DOWN(type->regions[*last_idx].base +
>> > + type->regions[*last_idx].size);
>> > +
>> > + if (pfn < end_pfn && pfn > start_pfn)
>> Could be (pfn < end_pfn && pfn >= start_pfn)?
>>
>> pfn == start_pfn is also a valid address.
>No, pfn=pfn+1 at the beginning, so pfn != start_pfn
This is a little bit tricky.
There is no requirement to pass a valid pfn to memblock_next_valid_pfn(). So
suppose we have memory layout like this:
[0x100, 0x1ff]
[0x300, 0x3ff]
And I call memblock_next_valid_pfn(0x2ff, 1), would this fits the fast path
logic?
Well, since memblock_next_valid_pfn() only used memmap_init_zone(), the
situation as I mentioned seems will not happen.
Even though, I suggest to chagne this, otherwise your logic in slow path and
fast path differs. In the case above, your slow path returns 0x300 at last.
>>
>> > + return pfn;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + /* slow path, do the binary searching */
>> > + do {
>> > + mid = (right + left) / 2;
>> > +
>> > + if (addr < type->regions[mid].base)
>> > + right = mid;
>> > + else if (addr >= (type->regions[mid].base +
>> > + type->regions[mid].size))
>> > + left = mid + 1;
>> > + else {
>> > + *last_idx = mid;
>> > + return pfn;
>> > + }
>> > + } while (left < right);
>> > +
>> > + if (right == type->cnt)
>> > + return -1UL;
>> > +
>> > + *last_idx = right;
>> > +
>> > + return PHYS_PFN(type->regions[*last_idx].base);
>> > +}
>> > +#endif /*CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID*/
>> The same comment as Daniel, you are moving the function out of
>> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP.
>> > +
>> > static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
>> > phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
>> > phys_addr_t end, int nid, ulong flags)
>> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > index 2a967f7..0bb0274 100644
>> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > @@ -5459,6 +5459,7 @@ void __meminit memmap_init_zone(unsigned long size, int nid, unsigned long zone,
>> > unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + size;
>> > pg_data_t *pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
>> > unsigned long pfn;
>> > + int idx = -1;
>> > unsigned long nr_initialised = 0;
>> > struct page *page;
>> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
>> > @@ -5490,7 +5491,7 @@ void __meminit memmap_init_zone(unsigned long size, int nid, unsigned long zone,
>> > * end_pfn), such that we hit a valid pfn (or end_pfn)
>> > * on our next iteration of the loop.
>> > */
>> > - pfn = memblock_next_valid_pfn(pfn) - 1;
>> > + pfn = memblock_next_valid_pfn(pfn, &idx) - 1;
>> > #endif
>> > continue;
>> > }
>> > --
>> > 2.7.4
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
Powered by blists - more mailing lists