linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 08/16] vfio/type1: Cache locked_vm to ease mmap

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: <20220107163938.esft3w5nscav2gu2@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 11:39:38 -0500
From:   Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 08/16] vfio/type1: Cache locked_vm to ease mmap_lock
 contention

On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:18:07AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 10:06:42PM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> 
> > > At least it seems like it is not an insurmountable problem if it makes
> > > an appreciable difference..
> > 
> > Ok, I can think more about this.
> 
> Unfortunately iommufd is not quite ready yet, otherwise I might
> suggest just focus on that not type 1 optimizations. Depends on your
> timeframe I suppose.

Ok, I see.  Well, sooner the better I guess, we've been carrying changes
for this a while.

> > > After seeing Daniels's patches I've been wondering if the pin step in
> > > iommufd's draft could be parallized on a per-map basis without too
> > > much trouble. It might give Daniel a way to do a quick approach
> > > comparison..
> > 
> > Sorry, comparison between what?  I can take a look at iommufd tomorrow
> > though and see if your comment makes more sense.
> 
> I think it might be easier to change the iommufd locking than the
> type1 locking to allow kernel-side parallel map ioctls. It is already
> almost properly locked for this right now, just the iopt lock covers a
> little bit too much.
> 
> It could give some idea what kind of performance user managed
> concurrency gives vs kernel auto threading.

Aha, I see, thanks!