Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:53:30 +0200 From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> CC: <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <corbet@....net>, <keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>, <labbott@...hat.com>, <jglisse@...hat.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <cl@...ux.com>, <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] struct page: add field for vm_struct On 12/02/18 18:24, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > > On 11/02/18 23:16, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 05:19:17AM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote: >>> The struct page has a "mapping" field, which can be re-used, to store a >>> pointer to the parent area. This will avoid more expensive searches. >>> >>> As example, the function find_vm_area is reimplemented, to take advantage >>> of the newly introduced field. >> >> Umm. Is it more efficient? You're replacing an rb-tree search with a >> page-table walk. You eliminate a spinlock, which is great, but is the >> page-table walk more efficient? I suppose it'll depend on the depth of >> the rb-tree, and (at least on x86), the page tables should already be >> in cache. > > I thought the tradeoff favorable. It turns out that it's probably not so favorable. The patch relies on the function vmalloc_to_page ... which will return NULL when applied to huge mappings, while the original implementation will still work. It was found while testing on a configuration with framebuffer. So it seems unlikely that there is any gain to be had, from this perspective. The use of the field still makes sense from the perspective of adding pmalloc support to hardened usercopy, but there is no more need for the field to exist as separate patch. This patch can be simplified and merged with the pmalloc patch. -- igor
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.