linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/25] mm: Introduce mm_fault

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:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:19:17 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/25] mm: Introduce mm_fault_accounting()

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:32:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:16 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Provide this helper for doing memory page fault accounting across archs.  It
> > can be defined unconditionally because perf_sw_event() is always defined, and
> > perf_sw_event() will be a no-op if !CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS.
> 
> Well, the downside is that now it forces a separate I$ miss and all
> those extra arguments because it's a out-of-line function and the
> compiler won't see that they all go away.
> 
> Yeah, maybe some day maybe we'll have LTO and these kinds of things
> will not matter. And maybe they already don't. But it seems kind of
> sad to basically force non-optimal code generation from this series.

I tried to make it static inline firstly in linux/mm.h, however it'll need to
have linux/mm.h include linux/perf_event.h which seems to have created a loop
dependency of headers.  I verified current code will at least generate inlined
functions too for x86 (no mm_fault_accounting() in "objdump -t vmlinux") with
gcc10.

Another alternative is to make it a macro, it's just that I feel the function
definition is a bit cleaner.  Any further suggestions welcomed too.

> 
> Why would you export the symbol, btw? Page fault handling is never a module.

I followed handle_mm_fault() which is exported too, since potentially
mm_fault_accounting() should always be called in the same context of
handle_mm_fault().  Or do you prefer me to drop it?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu