linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Optimize mprotect() for large folios

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cfa3a3a8-6075-46ff-8150-597c8bfd0652@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:52:42 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: david@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
 Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
 jannh@...gle.com, anshuman.khandual@....com, peterx@...hat.com,
 joey.gouly@....com, ioworker0@...il.com, baohua@...nel.org,
 kevin.brodsky@....com, quic_zhenhuah@...cinc.com,
 christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, yangyicong@...ilicon.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, hughd@...gle.com,
 yang@...amperecomputing.com, ziy@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Optimize mprotect() for large folios


On 30/06/25 4:15 pm, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 04:33, Dev Jain wrote:
>> On 30/06/25 4:35 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 17:04:31 +0530 Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patchset optimizes the mprotect() system call for large folios
>>>> by PTE-batching. No issues were observed with mm-selftests, build
>>>> tested on x86_64.
>>> um what.  Seems to claim that "selftests still compiles after I messed
>>> with stuff", which isn't very impressive ;)  Please clarify?
>> Sorry I mean to say that the mm-selftests pass.
> I think you're saying you both compiled and ran the mm selftests for arm64. And
> additionally you compiled for x86_64? (Just trying to help clarify).

Yes, ran mm-selftests on arm64, and build-tested the patches for x86.

>
>>>> We use the following test cases to measure performance, mprotect()'ing
>>>> the mapped memory to read-only then read-write 40 times:
>>>>
>>>> Test case 1: Mapping 1G of memory, touching it to get PMD-THPs, then
>>>> pte-mapping those THPs
>>>> Test case 2: Mapping 1G of memory with 64K mTHPs
>>>> Test case 3: Mapping 1G of memory with 4K pages
>>>>
>>>> Average execution time on arm64, Apple M3:
>>>> Before the patchset:
>>>> T1: 7.9 seconds   T2: 7.9 seconds   T3: 4.2 seconds
>>>>
>>>> After the patchset:
>>>> T1: 2.1 seconds   T2: 2.2 seconds   T3: 4.3 seconds
>>> Well that's tasty.
>>>
>>>> Observing T1/T2 and T3 before the patchset, we also remove the regression
>>>> introduced by ptep_get() on a contpte block. And, for large folios we get
>>>> an almost 74% performance improvement, albeit the trade-off being a slight
>>>> degradation in the small folio case.
>>>>
>