linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 3/7] mm: Add function __putback_isolated

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: <70b3e09ce40ab8bc54a8509e3ea2ec13bfeb3e47.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:50:16 -0800
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        mst@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vbabka@...e.cz,
        yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, nitesh@...hat.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        pagupta@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com, lcapitulino@...hat.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, osalvador@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 3/7] mm: Add function __putback_isolated_page

On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 19:46 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Am 17.12.2019 um 19:25 schrieb Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 18:24 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > > Also there are some scenarios where __page_to_pfn is not that simple a
> > > > > > call with us having to get the node ID so we can find the pgdat structure
> > > > > > to perform the calculation. I'm not sure the compiler would be ble to
> > > > > > figure out that the result is the same for both calls, so it is better to
> > > > > > make it explicit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Only in case of CONFIG_SPARSEMEM we have to go via the section - but I
> > > > > doubt this is really worth optimizing here.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But yeah, I'm fine with this change, only "IMHO
> > > > > get_pageblock_migratetype() would be nicer" :)
> > > > 
> > > > Aren't most distros running with CONFIG_SPARSEMEM enabled? If that is the
> > > > case why not optimize for it?
> > > 
> > > Because I tend to dislike micro-optimizations without performance
> > > numbers for code that is not on a hot path. But I mean in this case, as
> > > you said, you need the pfn either way, so it's completely fine with.
> > > 
> > > I do wonder, however, if you should just pass in the migratetype from
> > > the caller. That would be even faster ;)
> > 
> > The problem is page isolation. We can end up with a page being moved to an
> > isolate pageblock while we aren't holding the zone lock, and as such we
> > likely need to test it again anyway. So there isn't value in storing and
> > reusing the value for cases like page reporting.
> > 
> > In addition, the act of isolating the page can cause the migratetype to
> > change as __isolate_free_page will attempt to change the migratetype to
> > movable if it is one of the standard percpu types and we are pulling at
> > least half a pageblock out. So storing the value before we isolate it
> > would be problematic as well.
> > 
> > Undoing page isolation is the exception to the issues pointed out above,
> > but in that case we are overwriting the pageblock migratetype anyway so
> > the cache lines involved should all be warm from having just set the
> > value.
> 
> Nothing would speak against querying the migratetype in the caller and
> passing it on. After all you‘re holding the zone lock, so it can‘t
> change.

That's a fair argument. I will go ahead and make that change since it only
really adds one line to patch 4 and allows us to drop several lines from
patch 3.