linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: Use atomic_long_add_return

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z_9jH0cO-4AUM3Tb@pc636>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:58:23 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: Use atomic_long_add_return_relaxed()

On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 07:37:31PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 01:26:46PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > Switch from the atomic_long_add_return() to its relaxed version.
> > 
> > We do not need a full memory barrier or any memory ordering during
> > increasing the "vmap_lazy_nr" variable. What we only need is to do it
> > atomically. This is what atomic_long_add_return_relaxed() guarantees.
> > 
> > AARCH64:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > Default:
> >     40ec:       d34cfe94        lsr     x20, x20, #12
> >     40f0:       14000044        b       4200 <free_vmap_area_noflush+0x19c>
> >     40f4:       94000000        bl      0 <__sanitizer_cov_trace_pc>
> >     40f8:       90000000        adrp    x0, 0 <__traceiter_alloc_vmap_area>
> >     40fc:       91000000        add     x0, x0, #0x0
> >     4100:       f8f40016        ldaddal x20, x22, [x0]
> >     4104:       8b160296        add     x22, x20, x22
> > 
> > Relaxed:
> >     40ec:       d34cfe94        lsr     x20, x20, #12
> >     40f0:       14000044        b       4200 <free_vmap_area_noflush+0x19c>
> >     40f4:       94000000        bl      0 <__sanitizer_cov_trace_pc>
> >     40f8:       90000000        adrp    x0, 0 <__traceiter_alloc_vmap_area>
> >     40fc:       91000000        add     x0, x0, #0x0
> >     4100:       f8340016        ldadd   x20, x22, [x0]
> >     4104:       8b160296        add     x22, x20, x22
> > <snip>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > index 7bb32f498d39..9d4027041a3f 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > @@ -2370,7 +2370,7 @@ static void free_vmap_area_noflush(struct vmap_area *va)
> >  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&va->list)))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	nr_lazy = atomic_long_add_return(va_size(va) >> PAGE_SHIFT,
> > +	nr_lazy = atomic_long_add_return_relaxed(va_size(va) >> PAGE_SHIFT,
> >  					 &vmap_lazy_nr);
> >  
> >  	/*
> 
> If touching this, maybe a step further -- I see false sharing with:
> nm vmlinux | sort -k 1
> 
> [snip]
> ffffffff845cb240 b vmap_lazy_nr
> ffffffff845cb248 b nr_vmalloc_pages
> ffffffff845cb260 b single
> [/snip]
> 
> If this is used enough to warrant messing with eliding a fence, then it
> probably also wants to elide some false sharing.
> 
> So at least the first two should be annotated with __cacheline_aligned_in_smp?
> 
> I am not going to push though, feel free to ignore.
>
OK, i see your point. I will check closer. We can place both into two
different cache-lines to prevent interference between each other.

But that will be a different patch.

Thank you for the nit!

--
Uladzislau Rezki