linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: move per-vma lock into vm_area

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: <hcwwxvl4bzyejjtdmrzwvwfyejzi2so2kke2b5yls3z2o67gou@67hxetrsr5ec>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:53:54 +0100
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	hannes@...xchg.org, oliver.sang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, 
	david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, 
	paulmck@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, 
	hughd@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, 
	souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: move per-vma lock into vm_area_struct

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 02:28:16PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 11:46:32AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Back when per-vma locks were introduces, vm_lock was moved out of
> > vm_area_struct in [1] because of the performance regression caused by
> > false cacheline sharing. Recent investigation [2] revealed that the
> > regressions is limited to a rather old Broadwell microarchitecture and
> > even there it can be mitigated by disabling adjacent cacheline
> > prefetching, see [3].
> 
> I don't see a motivating reason as to why we want to do this? We increase
> memory usage here which is not good, but later lock optimisation mitigates
> it, but why wouldn't we just do the lock optimisations and use less memory
> overall?
> 

Where would you put the lock in that case though?

With the patchset it sticks with the affected vma, so no false-sharing
woes concerning other instances of the same struct.

If you make them separately allocated and packed, they false-share
between different vmas using them (in fact this is currently happening).
If you make sure to pad them, that's 64 bytes per obj, majority of which
is empty space.