linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 5/5] mm: multi-gen LRU: use mmu_notifier_test_clear

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:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:58:19 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michael Larabel <michael@...haellarabel.com>,
        kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 5/5] mm: multi-gen LRU: use mmu_notifier_test_clear_young()

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:11 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > > As alluded to in patch 1, unless batching the walks even if KVM does _not_ support
> > > > a lockless walk is somehow _worse_ than using the existing mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young(),
> > > > I think batching the calls should be conditional only on LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK.  Or
> > > > if we want to avoid batching when there are no mmu_notifier listeners, probe
> > > > mmu_notifiers.  But don't call into KVM directly.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I fully understand. Let's present the problem on the MM
> > > side: assuming KVM supports lockless walks, batching can still be
> > > worse (very unlikely), because GFNs can exhibit no memory locality at
> > > all. So this option allows userspace to disable batching.
> >
> > I'm asking the opposite.  Is there a scenario where batching+lock is worse than
> > !batching+lock?  If not, then don't make batching depend on lockless walks.
> 
> Yes, absolutely. batching+lock means we take/release mmu_lock for
> every single PTE in the entire VA space -- each small batch contains
> 64 PTEs but the entire batch is the whole KVM.

Who is "we"?  I don't see anything in the kernel that triggers walking the whole
VMA, e.g. lru_gen_look_around() limits the walk to a single PMD.  I feel like I'm
missing something...