linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/12] x86/mm: enable broadcast TLB invalidation for multi-threaded processes

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: <6A40E0A3-CF69-481B-92D1-F86581DC3441@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 16:52:41 +0200
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 kernel-team@...a.com,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 luto@...nel.org,
 peterz@...radead.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
 "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] x86/mm: enable broadcast TLB invalidation for
 multi-threaded processes

> On 30 Dec 2024, at 19:53, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
> 
> +/*
> + * Figure out whether to assign a broadcast (global) ASID to a process.
> + * We vary the threshold by how empty or full broadcast ASID space is.
> + * 1/4 full: >= 4 active threads
> + * 1/2 full: >= 8 active threads
> + * 3/4 full: >= 16 active threads
> + * 7/8 full: >= 32 active threads
> + * etc
> + *
> + * This way we should never exhaust the broadcast ASID space, even on very
> + * large systems, and the processes with the largest number of active
> + * threads should be able to use broadcast TLB invalidation.
> + */
> +#define HALFFULL_THRESHOLD 8
> +static bool meets_broadcast_asid_threshold(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	int avail = broadcast_asid_available;
> +	int threshold = HALFFULL_THRESHOLD;
> +
> +	if (!avail)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (avail > MAX_ASID_AVAILABLE * 3 / 4) {
> +		threshold = HALFFULL_THRESHOLD / 4;
> +	} else if (avail > MAX_ASID_AVAILABLE / 2) {
> +		threshold = HALFFULL_THRESHOLD / 2;
> +	} else if (avail < MAX_ASID_AVAILABLE / 3) {
> +		do {
> +			avail *= 2;
> +			threshold *= 2;
> +		} while ((avail + threshold) < MAX_ASID_AVAILABLE / 2);
> +	}
> +
> +	return mm_active_cpus_exceeds(mm, threshold);
> +}

Rik,

I thought about it further and I am not sure this approach is so great.
It reminds me the technique of eating chocolate forever: each day eat
half of the previous day. It works in theory, but less in practice.

IOW, I mean it seems likely that early processes would get and hog all
broadcast ASIDs. It seems necessary to be able to revoke broadcast ASIDs,
although I understand it can be complicated.

Do you have any other resource in mind that Linux manages in a similar
way (avoids revoking)?