linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: add vma_has

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:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 12:29:37 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@...gle.com>,
        Ivan Babrou <ivan@...udflare.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Steven Barrett <steven@...uorix.net>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@...wei.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: add vma_has_locality()

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 12:44:35 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:49 AM Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 22:13:40 -0800 Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> 
> This works; suggested-by probably works even better, since I didn't do
> the follow-up work.
> 
> > > Currently in vm_flags in vm_area_struct, both VM_SEQ_READ and
> > > VM_RAND_READ indicate a lack of locality in accesses to the vma. Some
> > > places that check for locality are missing one of them. We add
> > > vma_has_locality to replace the existing locality checks for clarity.
> >
> > I'm all confused.  Surely VM_SEQ_READ implies locality and VM_RAND_READ
> > indicates no-locality?
> 
> Spatially, yes. But we focus more on the temporal criteria here, i.e.,
> the reuse of an area within a relatively small duration. Both the
> active/inactive LRU and MGLRU rely on this.

Oh.  Why didn't it say that ;)

How about s/locality/recency/g?