linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Rewrite Motorola MMU page-table layout

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: <c4d3efbe-2d91-c5e4-aa9e-680ffd0d5c89@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:12:23 +1300
From:   Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Rewrite Motorola MMU page-table layout

Peter,

On 30/01/20 9:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 08:31:13PM +1300, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
>> Not much difference:
>>
>>               total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
>> Mem:         10712      10120        592          0       1860       2276
>> -/+ buffers/cache:       5984       4728
>> Swap:      2097144       1552    2095592
>>
>>
>> vs. vanilla 5.5rc5:
>>               total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
>> Mem:         10716      10104        612          0       1588       2544
>> -/+ buffers/cache:       5972       4744
>> Swap:      2097144       1296    2095848
>>
>> By sheer coincidence, the boot with your patch series happened to run a full
>> filesystem check on the root filesystem, so I'd say it got a good workout
>> re: paging and swapping (even though it's just a paltry 4 GB).
> Sweet!, can I translate this into a Tested-by: from you?

If the test coverage is sufficient, you may certainly do that.

Cheers,

     Michael

>
>> Haven't tried any VM stress testing yet (not sure what to do for that; it's
>> been years since I tried that sort of stuff).
> I think, this not being SMP, doing what you just did tickled just about
> everything there is.
>
> There is one more potential issue with MMU-gather / TLB invalidate on
> m68k (and a whole bunch of other archs) and I have patches for that
> (although I now need to redo the m68k one.
>
> Meanwhile the build robot gifted me with a build issue, and Will had
> some nitpicks, so I'll go respin and repost these patches.