linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: remove superfluous _

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: <CAHbLzkp4eOf=jywp+wuqqJoJwqMt7338cfxUsfz1KSt=zEZUiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:16:49 -0700
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: remove superfluous __ClearPageWaiters()

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:39 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:06:32PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:47 AM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Presumably __ClearPageWaiters() was added to follow the previously
> > > removed __ClearPageActive() pattern.
> > >
> > > Only flags that are in PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE needs to be properly
> > > cleared because otherwise we think there may be some kind of leak.
> > > PG_waiters is not one of those flags and leaving the clearing to
> > > PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP is more appropriate.
> >
> > Actually TBH I'm not very keen to this change, it seems the clearing
> > is just moved around and the allocation side pays for that instead of
> > free side.
>
> I'll assume you are referring to the overhead from clearing
> PG_waiters. First of all, there is no overhead -- we should have a
> serious talk with the hardware team who makes word-size bitwise AND
> more than one instruction. And the clearing is done in
> free_pages_prepare(), which has nothing to do with allocations.

Oh, yes, you are right. Now I'm wondering why we have the waiter bit
cleared at the first place.