linux-kernel - Re: [MOCKUP] x86/mm: Lightweight lazy mm refcounting

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201203084448.GF2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:44:48 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [MOCKUP] x86/mm: Lightweight lazy mm refcounting

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 09:25:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> power: same as ARM, except that the loop may be rather larger since
> the systems are bigger.  But I imagine it's still faster than Nick's
> approach -- a cmpxchg to a remote cacheline should still be faster than
> an IPI shootdown. 

While a single atomic might be cheaper than an IPI, the comparison
doesn't work out nicely. You do the xchg() on every unlazy, while the
IPI would be once per process exit.

So over the life of the process, it might do very many unlazies, adding
up to a total cost far in excess of what the single IPI would've been.

And while I appreciate all the work to get rid of the active_mm
accounting; the worry I have with pushing this all into arch code is
that it will be so very easy to get this subtly wrong.