linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Speed up slot_rmap_walk

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:31:19 -0700
From:   Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
To:     David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Speed up slot_rmap_walk_next for sparsely
 populated rmaps

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 4:53 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 4:31 PM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Avoid calling handlers on empty rmap entries and skip to the next non
> > empty rmap entry.
> >
> > Empty rmap entries are noop in handlers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
> > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > Change-Id: I8abf0f4d82a2aae4c5d58b80bcc17ffc30785ffc
>
> nit: Omit Change-Id tags from upstream commits.

Thanks for catching it.

>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 9 ++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index 51671cb34fb6..f296340803ba 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -1499,11 +1499,14 @@ static bool slot_rmap_walk_okay(struct slot_rmap_walk_iterator *iterator)
> >         return !!iterator->rmap;
> >  }
> >
> > -static void slot_rmap_walk_next(struct slot_rmap_walk_iterator *iterator)
> > +static noinline void
>
> What is the reason to add noinline?

My understanding is that since this method is called from
__always_inline methods, noinline will avoid gcc inlining the
slot_rmap_walk_next in those functions and generate smaller code.