On 02/10/2017 04:02 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Andrey Ryabinin > <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 02/10/2017 02:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>>> This is the right thing to do per se, but I am concerned that now >>>> people will just suffers from slow boot (it can take literally >>>> minutes) and will not realize the root cause nor that it's fixable >>>> (e.g. with rodata=n) and will probably just blame KASAN for slowness. >>>> >>>> Could we default this rodata check to n under KASAN? Or at least print >>>> some explanatory warning message before doing marking rodata (it >>>> should be printed right before "hang", so if you stare at it for a >>>> minute during each boot you realize that it may be related)? Or >>>> something along these lines. FWIW in my builds I just always disable >>>> the check. >>> >>> That certainly makes sense and we emit such warnings in other places >>> already (lockdep, trace_printk ...) >>> >> >> Agreed, but perhaps it would be better to make this code faster for KASAN=y? >> The main problem here is that we have many pgd entries containing kasan_zero_pud values >> and ptdump walker checks kasan_zero_pud many times. >> Instead, we could check it only once and skip further kasan_zero_pud's. >> >> I can't say I like this hack very much, but it wins me almost 20 seconds of boot time. >> Any objections? > > > Now I remember that we already discussed it in this thread: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/8/775 > > Andrey, you proposed: > > "I didn't look at any code, but we probably could can remember last > visited pgd and skip next pgd if it's the same as previous." > > Do you still think it's a good idea? Ah, indeed. It will do roughly the same but with less of code churn, see bellow. > Walking the same pgd multiple times does not make sense (right?). And > it could probably speedup non-kasan builds to some degree in some > contexts. And the code will be free of additional ifdefs. > We could make it without ifdefs but this would be useless for KASAN=n as page table entries normally unique. So I'm thinking to add #ifdef at least for documentation purposes. diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c b/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c index 8aa6bea..1599a5c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c @@ -373,6 +373,11 @@ static inline bool is_hypervisor_range(int idx) #endif } +static bool pgd_already_checked(pgd_t *prev_pgd, pgd_t *pgd, bool checkwx) +{ + return checkwx && prev_pgd && (pgd_val(*prev_pgd) == pgd_val(*pgd)); +} + static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(struct seq_file *m, pgd_t *pgd, bool checkwx) { @@ -381,6 +386,7 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(struct seq_file *m, pgd_t *pgd, #else pgd_t *start = swapper_pg_dir; #endif + pgd_t *prev_pgd = NULL; pgprotval_t prot; int i; struct pg_state st = {}; @@ -396,7 +402,8 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(struct seq_file *m, pgd_t *pgd, for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PGD; i++) { st.current_address = normalize_addr(i * PGD_LEVEL_MULT); - if (!pgd_none(*start) && !is_hypervisor_range(i)) { + if (!pgd_none(*start) && !is_hypervisor_range(i) && + !pgd_already_checked(prev_pgd, start, checkwx)) { if (pgd_large(*start) || !pgd_present(*start)) { prot = pgd_flags(*start); note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(prot), 1); @@ -408,6 +415,7 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(struct seq_file *m, pgd_t *pgd, note_page(m, &st, __pgprot(0), 1); cond_resched(); + prev_pgd = start; start++; } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html