| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <70fa216c-c6cc-73b1-cc43-24c3740a2984@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:28:30 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, joro@...tes.org
Cc: will@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhangzekun11@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/iova: Make the rcache depot scale better
On 2023-08-21 13:02, John Garry wrote:
> On 14/08/2023 18:53, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> The algorithm in the original paper specifies the storage of full
>> magazines in the depot as an unbounded list rather than a fixed-size
>> array. It turns out to be pretty straightforward to do this in our
>> implementation with no significant loss of efficiency. This allows
>> the depot to scale up to the working set sizes of larger systems,
>> while also potentially saving some memory on smaller ones too.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
>
> This looks ok (ignoring the crash reported), so feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Thanks!
> A small comment and question below.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/iova.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> index 10b964600948..d2de6fb0e9f4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> @@ -625,10 +625,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reserve_iova);
>> * will be wasted.
>> */
>> #define IOVA_MAG_SIZE 127
>> -#define MAX_GLOBAL_MAGS 32 /* magazines per bin */
>> struct iova_magazine {
>> - unsigned long size;
>> + /*
>> + * Only full magazines are inserted into the depot, so we can avoid
>> + * a separate list head and preserve maximum space-efficiency.
>
> It might be worth explicitly mentioning that we try to keep total mag
> size as power-of-2
Sure, I can tie it in with the existing comment above, which might
actually end up more readable anyway.
>> + */
>> + union {
>> + unsigned long size;
>> + struct iova_magazine *next;
>> + };
>> unsigned long pfns[IOVA_MAG_SIZE];
>> };
>> @@ -640,8 +646,7 @@ struct iova_cpu_rcache {
>> struct iova_rcache {
>> spinlock_t lock;
>> - unsigned long depot_size;
>> - struct iova_magazine *depot[MAX_GLOBAL_MAGS];
>> + struct iova_magazine *depot;
>> struct iova_cpu_rcache __percpu *cpu_rcaches;
>> };
>> @@ -717,6 +722,21 @@ static void iova_magazine_push(struct
>> iova_magazine *mag, unsigned long pfn)
>> mag->pfns[mag->size++] = pfn;
>> }
>> +static struct iova_magazine *iova_depot_pop(struct iova_rcache *rcache)
>> +{
>> + struct iova_magazine *mag = rcache->depot;
>> +
>> + rcache->depot = mag->next;
>> + mag->size = IOVA_MAG_SIZE;
>> + return mag;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void iova_depot_push(struct iova_rcache *rcache, struct
>> iova_magazine *mag)
>> +{
>> + mag->next = rcache->depot;
>> + rcache->depot = mag;
>> +}
>> +
>> int iova_domain_init_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
>> {
>> unsigned int cpu;
>> @@ -734,7 +754,6 @@ int iova_domain_init_rcaches(struct iova_domain
>> *iovad)
>> rcache = &iovad->rcaches[i];
>> spin_lock_init(&rcache->lock);
>> - rcache->depot_size = 0;
>> rcache->cpu_rcaches = __alloc_percpu(sizeof(*cpu_rcache),
>> cache_line_size());
>> if (!rcache->cpu_rcaches) {
>> @@ -776,7 +795,6 @@ static bool __iova_rcache_insert(struct
>> iova_domain *iovad,
>> struct iova_rcache *rcache,
>> unsigned long iova_pfn)
>> {
>> - struct iova_magazine *mag_to_free = NULL;
>> struct iova_cpu_rcache *cpu_rcache;
>> bool can_insert = false;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> @@ -794,12 +812,7 @@ static bool __iova_rcache_insert(struct
>> iova_domain *iovad,
>> if (new_mag) {
>> spin_lock(&rcache->lock);
>> - if (rcache->depot_size < MAX_GLOBAL_MAGS) {
>> - rcache->depot[rcache->depot_size++] =
>> - cpu_rcache->loaded;
>> - } else {
>> - mag_to_free = cpu_rcache->loaded;
>> - }
>> + iova_depot_push(rcache, cpu_rcache->loaded);
>> spin_unlock(&rcache->lock);
>
> Out of curiosity, do you know why we take the approach (prior to this
> change) to free the loaded mag and alloc a new empty mag? Why not
> instead just say that we can't insert and bail out?
I have a feeling it must have been mentioned at some point, since my
memory says there was a deliberate intent to keep the flow through the
critical section simple and consistent, and minimise time spent holding
the rcache lock, and I'm 99% sure that isn't my own inferred reasoning...
Cheers,
Robin.
>> cpu_rcache->loaded = new_mag;
>> @@ -812,11 +825,6 @@ static bool __iova_rcache_insert(struct
>> iova_domain *iovad,
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpu_rcache->lock, flags);
>> - if (mag_to_free) {
>> - iova_magazine_free_pfns(mag_to_free, iovad);
>> - iova_magazine_free(mag_to_free);
>> - }
>> -
>> return can_insert;
>> }
>> @@ -854,9 +862,9 @@ static unsigned long __iova_rcache_get(struct
>> iova_rcache *rcache,
>> has_pfn = true;
>> } else {
>> spin_lock(&rcache->lock);
>> - if (rcache->depot_size > 0) {
>> + if (rcache->depot) {
>> iova_magazine_free(cpu_rcache->loaded);
>> - cpu_rcache->loaded = rcache->depot[--rcache->depot_size];
>> + cpu_rcache->loaded = iova_depot_pop(rcache);
>> has_pfn = true;
>> }
>> spin_unlock(&rcache->lock);
>> @@ -894,10 +902,10 @@ static void free_iova_rcaches(struct iova_domain
>> *iovad)
>> {
>> struct iova_rcache *rcache;
>> struct iova_cpu_rcache *cpu_rcache;
>> + struct iova_magazine *mag;
>> unsigned int cpu;
>> - int i, j;
>> - for (i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
>> + for (int i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
>> rcache = &iovad->rcaches[i];
>> if (!rcache->cpu_rcaches)
>> break;
>> @@ -907,8 +915,8 @@ static void free_iova_rcaches(struct iova_domain
>> *iovad)
>> iova_magazine_free(cpu_rcache->prev);
>> }
>> free_percpu(rcache->cpu_rcaches);
>> - for (j = 0; j < rcache->depot_size; ++j)
>> - iova_magazine_free(rcache->depot[j]);
>> + while ((mag = iova_depot_pop(rcache)))
>> + iova_magazine_free(mag);
>> }
>> kfree(iovad->rcaches);
>> @@ -941,17 +949,16 @@ static void free_cpu_cached_iovas(unsigned int
>> cpu, struct iova_domain *iovad)
>> static void free_global_cached_iovas(struct iova_domain *iovad)
>> {
>> struct iova_rcache *rcache;
>> + struct iova_magazine *mag;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> - int i, j;
>> - for (i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
>> + for (int i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
>> rcache = &iovad->rcaches[i];
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&rcache->lock, flags);
>> - for (j = 0; j < rcache->depot_size; ++j) {
>> - iova_magazine_free_pfns(rcache->depot[j], iovad);
>> - iova_magazine_free(rcache->depot[j]);
>> + while ((mag = iova_depot_pop(rcache))) {
>> + iova_magazine_free_pfns(mag, iovad);
>> + iova_magazine_free(mag);
>> }
>> - rcache->depot_size = 0;
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcache->lock, flags);
>> }
>> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists