linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] nvme-hwmon: Cache-line-align the NVME SMART log-buffer

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]

Date:   Sat, 10 Sep 2022 21:09:17 +0300
From:   Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Jonathan Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>,
        Revanth Rajashekar <revanth.rajashekar@...el.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Pavel Parkhomenko <Pavel.Parkhomenko@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nvme-hwmon: Cache-line-align the NVME SMART
 log-buffer

On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 03:35:45PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 07:30:45AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I think this will work, but unless we have to I'd generally prefer
> > to just split dta that is DMAed into into a separate allocation.
> > That is, do a separate kmalloc for the nvme_smart_log structure.
> 
> Well, both approaches will solve the denoted problem. I am just
> wondering why do you think that the kmalloc-ed buffer is more
> preferable? IMO it is a bit less suitable since increases the memory

> granularity - two kmalloc's instead of one. Moreover it makes the code
  ^
  `-- I meant fragmentation of course...

> a bit more complex for the same reason of having two mallocs and two
> frees. Meanwhile using the ____cacheline_aligned qualifier to prevent
> the noncoherent DMA problem is a standard approach.
> 
> What would be the best solution if we had a qualifier like this:
> #ifdef CONFIG_DMA_NONCOHERENT
> #define ____dma_buffer ____cacheline_aligned
> #else
> #define ____dma_buffer
> #endif
> and used it instead of the direct ____cacheline_aligned utilization.
> 
> -Sergey
> 
> > 
> > Guenter, is this ok with you?