linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] vm: align vma allocation and move the lock back into the struct

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: <CAJuCfpEMyRATp+6Xhe_XX-8hPKzONKonWbt_Jnkyp-wOJkN9ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 16:56:40 +0000
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lstoakes@...il.com, pedro.falcato@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vm: align vma allocation and move the lock back into
 the struct

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 3:09 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On 8/9/24 05:57, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Maybe it has something to do with NUMA? The system I'm running has 2 NUMA nodes:
>
> I kinda doubt the NUMA aspect. Whether you allocate a vma that embeds a
> lock, or a vma and immediately the separate lock, it's unlikely they would
> end up on different nodes so from the NUMA perspective I don't see a
> difference. And if they ended up on separate nodes, it would more likely be
> worse for the case of separate locks, not better.

I have an UMA machine. Will try the test there as well. It won't
provide hard proof but at least some possible hints.