netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v19 08/14] mm: page_frag: use __alloc_pages() to replace alloc_pages

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: <CAKgT0UchhzRXd03XXb5VMh99hgf9XOQ9Dkq3x93vgwsoYxzZxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 16:52:37 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v19 08/14] mm: page_frag: use __alloc_pages() to
 replace alloc_pages_node()

On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 12:59 AM Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@...il.com> wrote:
>
> It seems there is about 24Bytes binary size increase for
> __page_frag_cache_refill() after refactoring in arm64 system
> with 64K PAGE_SIZE. By doing the gdb disassembling, It seems
> we can have more than 100Bytes decrease for the binary size
> by using __alloc_pages() to replace alloc_pages_node(), as
> there seems to be some unnecessary checking for nid being
> NUMA_NO_NODE, especially when page_frag is part of the mm
> system.
>
> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> ---
>  mm/page_frag_cache.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_frag_cache.c b/mm/page_frag_cache.c
> index 6f6e47bbdc8d..a5448b44068a 100644
> --- a/mm/page_frag_cache.c
> +++ b/mm/page_frag_cache.c
> @@ -61,11 +61,11 @@ static struct page *__page_frag_cache_refill(struct page_frag_cache *nc,
>  #if (PAGE_SIZE < PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_SIZE)
>         gfp_mask = (gfp_mask & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) |  __GFP_COMP |
>                    __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC;
> -       page = alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp_mask,
> -                               PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_ORDER);
> +       page = __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_ORDER,
> +                            numa_mem_id(), NULL);
>  #endif
>         if (unlikely(!page)) {
> -               page = alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp, 0);
> +               page = __alloc_pages(gfp, 0, numa_mem_id(), NULL);
>                 order = 0;
>         }
>

Still not a huge fan of fixing the bigger issue here, but I guess
there is only one or two other spots that encounter this, so I would
classify it as "mostly harmless" in terms of not fixing it.

Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>