All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zhenhua Huang <quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>, <glider@google.com>,
	<elver@google.com>, <dvyukov@google.com>, <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	<mark.rutland@arm.com>, <jianyong.wu@arm.com>,
	<james.morse@arm.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	<quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>, <quic_guptap@quicinc.com>,
	<quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm,kfence: decouple kfence from page granularity mapping judgement
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 13:02:29 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f105b2e3-3625-7094-082c-2e17021b42f9@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230312140110.4f3571b92a2556767d7667fc@linux-foundation.org>

Thanks Andrew!

On 2023/3/13 5:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:30:04 +0800 Zhenhua Huang <quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com> wrote:
> 
>> Kfence only needs its pool to be mapped as page granularity, previous
>> judgement was a bit over protected. Decouple it from judgement and do
>> page granularity mapping for kfence pool only [1].
>>
>> To implement this, also relocate the kfence pool allocation before the
>> linear mapping setting up, arm64_kfence_alloc_pool is to allocate phys
>> addr, __kfence_pool is to be set after linear mapping set up.
> 
> Why make this change?  What are the benefits?  What are the user
> visible effects?
> 
>> LINK: [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1675750519-1064-1-git-send-email-quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com/T/
> 
> Chasing the links indicates that "page-granular mapping costed more (2M
> per 1GB) memory".  Please spell all this out in this patch's changelog.

Yeah, let me update these and also my test outcome in changelog to make 
it clear~! Thanks.

> 
> btw. this format:
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1675750519-1064-1-git-send-email-quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com/T/ [1]
> 
> is conventional.

Do you mean it was not directly pointing to Mark's suggestion? let me 
update to: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/Y+IsdrvDNILA59UN@FVFF77S0Q05N/

> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Zhenhua Huang <quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>, <glider@google.com>,
	<elver@google.com>, <dvyukov@google.com>, <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	<mark.rutland@arm.com>, <jianyong.wu@arm.com>,
	<james.morse@arm.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	<quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>, <quic_guptap@quicinc.com>,
	<quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm,kfence: decouple kfence from page granularity mapping judgement
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 13:02:29 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f105b2e3-3625-7094-082c-2e17021b42f9@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230312140110.4f3571b92a2556767d7667fc@linux-foundation.org>

Thanks Andrew!

On 2023/3/13 5:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:30:04 +0800 Zhenhua Huang <quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com> wrote:
> 
>> Kfence only needs its pool to be mapped as page granularity, previous
>> judgement was a bit over protected. Decouple it from judgement and do
>> page granularity mapping for kfence pool only [1].
>>
>> To implement this, also relocate the kfence pool allocation before the
>> linear mapping setting up, arm64_kfence_alloc_pool is to allocate phys
>> addr, __kfence_pool is to be set after linear mapping set up.
> 
> Why make this change?  What are the benefits?  What are the user
> visible effects?
> 
>> LINK: [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1675750519-1064-1-git-send-email-quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com/T/
> 
> Chasing the links indicates that "page-granular mapping costed more (2M
> per 1GB) memory".  Please spell all this out in this patch's changelog.

Yeah, let me update these and also my test outcome in changelog to make 
it clear~! Thanks.

> 
> btw. this format:
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1675750519-1064-1-git-send-email-quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com/T/ [1]
> 
> is conventional.

Do you mean it was not directly pointing to Mark's suggestion? let me 
update to: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/Y+IsdrvDNILA59UN@FVFF77S0Q05N/

> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-13  5:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-10  9:30 [PATCH v4] mm,kfence: decouple kfence from page granularity mapping judgement Zhenhua Huang
2023-03-10  9:30 ` Zhenhua Huang
2023-03-12 21:01 ` Andrew Morton
2023-03-12 21:01   ` Andrew Morton
2023-03-13  5:02   ` Zhenhua Huang [this message]
2023-03-13  5:02     ` Zhenhua Huang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f105b2e3-3625-7094-082c-2e17021b42f9@quicinc.com \
    --to=quic_zhenhuah@quicinc.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=jianyong.wu@arm.com \
    --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=quic_guptap@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.