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]

Message-ID: <20240621182915.S-ULWn0O@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:29:15 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
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 2024-06-21 10:20:58 [-0400], Kent Overstreet wrote:
> 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

Well, the front is bad.
Looking at pgalloc_tag_add() and its callers, there is no task_struct
touching. alloc_tag_save()/restore might be the critical one. This is
random code… Puh. So if the end is too cold, what about around the mm
pointer?
Other suggestions?

Sebastian