linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/task_struct: Move alloc

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: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:20:58 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, 
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, 
	Klara Modin <klarasmodin@...il.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/task_struct: Move alloc_tag to the end of the
 struct.

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:27:50PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The alloc_tag member has been added to task_struct at the very
> beginning. This is a pointer and on 64bit architectures it forces 4 byte
> padding after `ptrace' and then forcing another another 4 byte padding
> after `on_cpu'. A few members later, `se' requires a cacheline aligned
> due to struct sched_avg resulting in 52 hole before `se'.
> 
> This is the case on 64bit-SMP architectures.
> The 52 byte hole can be avoided by moving alloc_tag away where it
> currently resides.
> 
> Move alloc_tag to the end of task_struct. There is likely a hole before
> `thread' due to its alignment requirement and the previous members are
> likely to be already pointer-aligned.

We sure we want it at the end? we do want it on a hot cacheline