linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] mm/thp: Make ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS dependent on USE_SPLIT_PTE

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: <67a7c36d-a040-b58a-ab8b-d67ba4341369@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Jul 2021 09:09:22 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm/thp: Make ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS dependent on
 USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS



On 7/5/21 8:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 08:57:54AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>> On 7/1/21 6:27 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:51:27AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/20/21 4:47 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:03:06PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>>> Split ptlocks need not be defined and allocated unless they are being used.
>>>>>> ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS is inherently dependent on USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS. This
>>>>>> just makes it explicit and clear. While here drop the spinlock_t element
>>>>>> from the struct page when USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS is not enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't spot this email yesterday.  I'm not a fan.  Isn't struct page
>>>>> already complicated enough without adding another ifdef to it?  Surely
>>>>> there's a better way than this.
>>>>
>>>> This discussion thread just got dropped off the radar, sorry about it.
>>>> None of the spinlock_t elements are required unless split ptlocks are
>>>> in use. I understand your concern regarding yet another #ifdef in the
>>>> struct page definition. But this change is simple and minimal. Do you
>>>> have any other particular alternative in mind which I could explore ?
>>>
>>> Do nothing?  I don't understand what problem you're trying to solve.
>>
>> Currently there is an element (spinlock_t ptl) in the struct page for page
>> table lock. Although a struct page based spinlock is not even required in
>> case USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS evaluates to be false. Is not that something to
>> be fixed here i.e drop the splinlock_t element if not required ?
> 
> No?  It doesn't actually cause any problems, does it?
> 

No but should an unnecessary element in a struct is dropped only if there
is a reported problem ?