linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: change IOVA_MAG

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: <51af869a-83d4-631a-2d91-edb8b066bf4d@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 12:33:17 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
CC:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
        <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: change IOVA_MAG_SIZE to 127 to save memory

On 01/07/2022 04:56, Feng Tang wrote:
>>> inclination.
>>>
>> ok, what you are saying sounds reasonable. I just remember that when we
>> analyzed the longterm aging issue that we concluded that the FQ size and its
>> relation to the magazine size was a factor and this change makes me a little
>> worried about new issues. Better the devil you know and all that...
>>
>> Anyway, if I get some time I might do some testing to see if this change has
>> any influence.
>>
>> Another thought is if we need even store the size in the iova_magazine? mags
>> in the depot are always full. As such, we only need worry about mags loaded
>> in the cpu rcache and their sizes, so maybe we could have something like
>> this:
>>
>> struct iova_magazine {
>> -       unsigned long size;
>>         unsigned long pfns[IOVA_MAG_SIZE];
>> };
>>
>> @@ -631,6 +630,8 @@ struct iova_cpu_rcache {
>>         spinlock_t lock;
>>         struct iova_magazine *loaded;
>>         struct iova_magazine *prev;
>> +       int loaded_size;
>> +       int prev_size;
>> };
>>
>> I haven't tried to implement it though..
> I have very few knowledge of iova, so you can chose what's the better
> solution. I just wanted to raise the problem and will be happy to see
> it solved:)

I quickly tested your patch for performance and saw no noticeable 
difference, which is no surprise.

But I'll defer to Robin if he thinks that your patch is a better 
solution - I would guess that he does. For me personally I would prefer 
that this value was not changed, as I mentioned before.

thanks,
John