linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] kernel/resource: clean up and optimize iomem_is

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: <22be7bd0-3f67-0e9c-87d4-1ec2c184cc6a@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Sep 2021 09:52:16 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] kernel/resource: clean up and optimize
 iomem_is_exclusive()

On 01.09.21 21:43, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 22:21 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We end up traversing subtrees of ranges we are not interested in; let's
>> optimize this case, skipping such subtrees, cleaning up the function a bit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/resource.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> That diffstat does not come across as "cleanup", and the skip_children
> flag changing values mid-iteration feels tricky. Is there a win here,
> the same number of entries still need to be accessed, right?

Right, most of the patch changes falls under "optimize". The cleanup is 
using for_each_resource() and not using r_next(NULL, p, &l). Sure, I 
could have split this up but then I'd just introduce for_each_resource() 
to modify it immediately again.


Let's take a look at /proc/iomem on my notebook:

00000000-00000fff : Reserved
00001000-00057fff : System RAM
00058000-00058fff : Reserved
00059000-0009cfff : System RAM
0009d000-000fffff : Reserved
   000a0000-000bffff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000c0000-000c3fff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000c4000-000c7fff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000c8000-000cbfff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000cc000-000cffff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000d0000-000d3fff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000d4000-000d7fff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000d8000-000dbfff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000dc000-000dffff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000e0000-000e3fff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000e4000-000e7fff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000e8000-000ebfff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000ec000-000effff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   000f0000-000fffff : PCI Bus 0000:00
     000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
00100000-3fffffff : System RAM
40000000-403fffff : Reserved
   40000000-403fffff : pnp 00:00
40400000-80a79fff : System RAM
...

Why should we take a look at any children of "0009d000-000fffff : 
Reserved" if we can just skip these 15 items directly because the parent 
range is not of interest?


It gets even worse for some PCI buses:

8f800000-f7ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00
   8f800000-8f9fffff : PCI Bus 0000:01
   8fa00000-8fbfffff : PCI Bus 0000:01
   90000000-b1ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
     90000000-b1ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:05
       90000000-b1ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:07
         90000000-b1ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:08
           90000000-b1ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:0d
   c0000000-cfffffff : 0000:00:02.0
   d0000000-e60fffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
     d0000000-e60fffff : PCI Bus 0000:05
       d0000000-e5efffff : PCI Bus 0000:07
         d0000000-e5efffff : PCI Bus 0000:08
           d0000000-d00fffff : PCI Bus 0000:09
           d0000000-d000ffff : 0000:09:00.0
           d0000000-d000ffff : xhci-hcd
           d0010000-d0010fff : 0000:09:00.0
           d0011000-d0011fff : 0000:09:00.0
           d0100000-d01fffff : PCI Bus 0000:0b
           d0100000-d010ffff : 0000:0b:00.0
           d0100000-d010ffff : xhci-hcd
           d0110000-d0110fff : 0000:0b:00.0
           d0111000-d0111fff : 0000:0b:00.0
           d0200000-e5efffff : PCI Bus 0000:0d
       e5f00000-e5ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:3c
         e5f00000-e5f0ffff : 0000:3c:00.0
           e5f00000-e5f0ffff : xhci-hcd
       e6000000-e60fffff : PCI Bus 0000:06
         e6000000-e603ffff : 0000:06:00.0
           e6000000-e603ffff : thunderbolt
         e6040000-e6040fff : 0000:06:00.0
   e7000000-e7ffffff : 0000:00:02.0
   e8000000-e80fffff : PCI Bus 0000:3e
     e8000000-e8003fff : 0000:3e:00.0
       e8000000-e8003fff : nvme
   e8100000-e81fffff : PCI Bus 0000:3d
     e8100000-e8101fff : 0000:3d:00.0
       e8100000-e8101fff : iwlwifi
   e8200000-e821ffff : 0000:00:1f.6
     e8200000-e821ffff : e1000e
   e8220000-e822ffff : 0000:00:14.0
     e8220000-e822ffff : xhci-hcd
       e8228070-e822846f : intel_xhci_usb_sw
   e8230000-e823ffff : 0000:00:1f.3
     e8230000-e823ffff : ICH HD audio
   e8240000-e8247fff : 0000:00:04.0
     e8240000-e8247fff : proc_thermal
   e8248000-e824bfff : 0000:00:1f.3
     e8248000-e824bfff : ICH HD audio
   e824c000-e824ffff : 0000:00:1f.2
   e8250000-e8250fff : 0000:00:08.0
   e8251000-e8251fff : 0000:00:14.2
     e8251000-e8251fff : Intel PCH thermal driver
   e8252000-e8252fff : 0000:00:15.0
     e8252000-e82521ff : lpss_dev
       e8252000-e82521ff : i2c_designware.0 lpss_dev
     e8252200-e82522ff : lpss_priv
     e8252800-e8252fff : idma64.0
       e8252800-e8252fff : idma64.0 idma64.0
   e8253000-e8253fff : 0000:00:16.0
     e8253000-e8253fff : mei_me
   e8254000-e82540ff : 0000:00:1f.4
   f7fe0000-f7ffffff : pnp 00:08
     f7fe0000-f7ffffff : pnp 00:0a

I didn't count how many entries these are, but it's certainly more 
entries in that subtree than I have directly under the root, meaning in 
my setup we end up looking at at least 50% less entries (actually, much 
more).

> 
> BTW, I had to pull this from lore to reply to it, looks like the
> intended Cc's were missing?

Yes, I messed up this time, sorry -- I forgot "--cover-cc" w ... I will 
resend the patches so everybody has them without going trough extra trouble.


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb