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: <20200512150250.GC8135@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 17:02:50 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <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>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] mm: Get rid of vmalloc_sync_(un)mappings()

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:36:19PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I’m guessing the right solution is either your series or your series
> plus preallocation on 64-bit. I’m just grumpy about it...

Okay, so we can do the pre-allocation when it turns out the pgd_list
lock-times become a problem on x86-64. The tracking code in vmalloc.c is
needed anyway for 32-bit and there is no reason why 64-bit shouldn't use
it as well for now.
I don't think that taking the lock _will_ be a problem, as it is only
taken when a new PGD/P4D entry is populated. And it is pretty unlikely
that a system will populate all 64 of them, with 4-level paging each of
these entries will map 512GB of address space. But if I am wrong here
pre-allocating is still an option.


	Joerg

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ