linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently

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, 26 Jun 2019 03:32:25 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently

> On Jun 25, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> On 6/25/19 7:35 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>> const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
>>>> +	enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
>>>> +
>>>> +	reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
>>> 
>>> Should we just add the "reason" to flush_tlb_info?  It's OK-ish to imply
>>> it like this, but seems like it would be nicer and easier to track down
>>> the origins of these things if we did this at the caller.
>> 
>> I prefer not to. I want later to inline flush_tlb_info into the same
>> cacheline that holds call_function_data. Increasing the size of
>> flush_tlb_info for no good reason will not help…
> 
> Well, flush_tlb_info is at 6/8ths of a cacheline at the moment.
> call_function_data is 3/8ths.  To me, that means we have some slack in
> the size.

I do not understand your math.. :(

6 + 3 > 8 so putting both flush_tlb_info and call_function_data does not
leave us any slack (we can save one qword, so we can actually put them
at the same cacheline).

You can see my current implementation here:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190531063645.4697-4-namit@vmware.com/T/#m0ab5fe0799ba9ff0d41197f1095679fe26aebd57
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190531063645.4697-4-namit@vmware.com/T/#m7b35a93dffd23fbb7ca813c795a0777d4cdcb51b