netdev - Re: Page allocator order-0 optimizations merged

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: <880114946.7747224.1490689731036.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: Page allocator order-0 optimizations merged


> 
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
> > Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} instead
> > > of the {preempt_disable,enable} calls.  But it is slower, using numbers
> > > from [1] (19 vs 11 cycles), thus the expected cycles saving is 38-19=19.
> > > 
> > > The problematic part of using local_bh_enable is that this adds a
> > > softirq/bottom-halves rescheduling point (as it checks for pending
> > > BHs).  Thus, this might affects real workloads.
> > 
> > I implemented this solution in patch below... and tested it on mlx5 at
> > 50G with manually disabled driver-page-recycling.  It works for me.
> > 
> > To Mel, that do you prefer... a partial-revert or something like this?
> > 
> 
> If Tariq confirms it works for him as well, this looks far safer patch
> than having a dedicate IRQ-safe queue. Your concern about the BH
> scheduling point is valid but if it's proven to be a problem, there is
> still the option of a partial revert.

I also feel the same.

Thanks,
Pankaj

> 
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs
>