Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:35:54 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com>, Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: arm64 physmap (was Re: [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory) On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > Why does using finer granularity on the physmap degrade performance? I > assume TLB pressure, but what is heavily using that area? (I must not > be understanding what physmap actually gets used for -- I thought it > was just a convenience to have a 1:1 virt/phys map for some lookups?) Jann has sorted me out: it's that physmap isn't an _alias_ for the buddy allocator memory areas; it's used directly. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.