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:   Fri, 8 May 2020 23:34:07 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] mm: Get rid of vmalloc_sync_(un)mappings()

Hi Peter,

thanks for reviewing this!

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:20:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The only concern I have is the pgd_lock lock hold times.
> 
> By not doing on-demand faults anymore, and consistently calling
> sync_global_*(), we iterate that pgd_list thing much more often than
> before if I'm not mistaken.

Should not be a problem, from what I have seen this function is not
called often on x86-64.  The vmalloc area needs to be synchronized at
the top-level there, which is by now P4D (with 4-level paging). And the
vmalloc area takes 64 entries, when all of them are populated the
function will not be called again.

On 32bit it might be called more often, because synchronization happens
on the PMD level, which is also used for large-page mapped ioremap
regions. But these don't happen very often and there are also no VMAP
stacks on x86-32 which could cause this function to be called
frequently.


	Joerg

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ