linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: vmalloc: use rwsem, mutex for vmap_area_lock and vmap

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: <ZBgROQ0uAfZCbScg@pc636>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 08:54:33 +0100
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: vmalloc: use rwsem, mutex for vmap_area_lock
 and vmap_block->lock

> vmalloc() is, by design, not permitted to be used in atomic context and
> already contains components which may sleep, so avoiding spin locks is not
> a problem from the perspective of atomic context.
> 
> The global vmap_area_lock is held when the red/black tree rooted in
> vmap_are_root is accessed and thus is rather long-held and under
> potentially high contention. It is likely to be under contention for reads
> rather than write, so replace it with a rwsem.
> 
> Each individual vmap_block->lock is likely to be held for less time but
> under low contention, so a mutex is not an outrageous choice here.
> 
> A subset of test_vmalloc.sh performance results:-
> 
> fix_size_alloc_test             0.40%
> full_fit_alloc_test		2.08%
> long_busy_list_alloc_test	0.34%
> random_size_alloc_test		-0.25%
> random_size_align_alloc_test	0.06%
> ...
> all tests cycles                0.2%
> 
> This represents a tiny reduction in performance that sits barely above
> noise.
> 
How important to have many simultaneous users of vread()? I do not see a
big reason to switch into mutexes due to performance impact and making it
less atomic.

So, how important for you to have this change?

--
Uladzislau Rezki