From: hev <r@hev.cc>
To: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
Cc: Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, ajd@linux.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
apopple@nvidia.com, baohua@kernel.org,
baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, brauner@kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, david@kernel.org, dev.jain@arm.com,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, jack@suse.cz, kas@kernel.org,
kees@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, kevin.brodsky@arm.com,
lance.yang@linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com,
npache@redhat.com, rmclure@linux.ibm.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com,
shakeel.butt@linux.dev, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
will@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, ziy@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] elf: align ET_DYN base to exec folio order for contpte mapping
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 10:10:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHirt9g=drGaeNN7C1hbND4=zXQifhQyP4cUaCz27=tYpHYgfQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3f60289-3ea1-43ce-9271-58c8b79bf7a0@linux.dev>
On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 3:47 AM Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 13/03/2026 17:42, WANG Rui wrote:
> > Hi Usama,
> >
>
> Hello!
>
> > Glad to see you're pushing on this, I'm also following it. I first noticed this when rustc's perf regressed after a binutils upgrade. I'm trying to make ld.so to aware THP and adjust PT_LOAD alignment to increase the chances of shared libraries being mapped by THP [1]. As you're probably seen, I'm doing something similar in the kernel to improve it for executables [2].
>
> For us it came about because we use 64K page size on ARM, and none of the
> text sections were getting hugified (because PMD size is 512M). I went with
> exec_folio_order() = cont-pte size (2M) for 16K and 64K as we can get both page
> fault benefit (which might not be that important) and iTLB coverage (due to
> cont-pte).
> x86 already faults in at 2M (HPAGE_PMD_ORDER) due to force_thp_readahead path in
> do_sync_mmap_readahead() so the memory pressure introduced in ARM won't be worse
> than what already exists in x86.
>
> >
> >> + if (exec_folio_order())
> >> + alignment = max(alignment,
> >> + (unsigned long)PAGE_SIZE << exec_folio_order());
> >
> > I’m curious, does it make sense to add some constraints here, like only increasing p_align when the segment length, virtual address, and file offset are all huge-aligned, as I did in my patch? This has come up several times in the glibc review, where increasing alignment was noted to reduce ASLR entropy.
> >
>
> Yes I think this makes sense!
>
> Although maybe we should check all segments with PT_LOAD. So maybe something
> like below over this series?
>
> diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> index 2d2b3e9fd474f..a0e83b541a7d8 100644
> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> @@ -1116,10 +1116,30 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> * the hardware cannot coalesce PTEs (e.g. arm64
> * contpte) even though the physical memory and
> * file offset are correctly aligned.
> + *
> + * Only increase alignment when at least one
> + * PT_LOAD segment is large enough to contain a
> + * full folio and has its file offset and virtual
> + * address folio-aligned. This avoids reducing
> + * ASLR entropy for small binaries that cannot
> + * benefit from contpte mapping.
> */
> - if (exec_folio_order())
> - alignment = max(alignment,
> - (unsigned long)PAGE_SIZE << exec_folio_order());
> + if (exec_folio_order()) {
> + unsigned long folio_sz = PAGE_SIZE << exec_folio_order();
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < elf_ex->e_phnum; i++) {
> + if (elf_phdata[i].p_type != PT_LOAD)
> + continue;
> + if (elf_phdata[i].p_filesz < folio_sz)
> + continue;
> + if (!IS_ALIGNED(elf_phdata[i].p_vaddr, folio_sz))
> + continue;
> + if (!IS_ALIGNED(elf_phdata[i].p_offset, folio_sz))
> + continue;
> + alignment = max(alignment, folio_sz);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
I think this logic should live in maximum_alignment(), so we don't
have to walk the segments twice. It might be better to move it into a
separate helper, something like should_align_to_exec_folio()?
>
> /**
> * DOC: PIE handling
>
> > [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2026-March/175776.html
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260313005211.882831-1-r@hev.cc
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rui
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-14 2:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-10 14:51 [PATCH 0/4] arm64/mm: contpte-sized exec folios for 16K and 64K pages Usama Arif
2026-03-10 14:51 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64: request contpte-sized folios for exec memory Usama Arif
2026-03-19 7:35 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-10 14:51 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm: bypass mmap_miss heuristic for VM_EXEC readahead Usama Arif
2026-03-18 16:43 ` Jan Kara
2026-03-19 7:37 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-10 14:51 ` [PATCH 3/4] elf: align ET_DYN base to exec folio order for contpte mapping Usama Arif
2026-03-13 14:42 ` WANG Rui
2026-03-13 19:47 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-14 2:10 ` hev [this message]
2026-03-10 14:51 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: align file-backed mmap to exec folio order in thp_get_unmapped_area Usama Arif
2026-03-14 3:47 ` WANG Rui
2026-03-13 13:20 ` [PATCH 0/4] arm64/mm: contpte-sized exec folios for 16K and 64K pages David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-13 19:59 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-16 16:06 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-18 10:41 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-18 12:41 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-13 16:33 ` Ryan Roberts
2026-03-13 20:55 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-18 10:52 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-19 7:40 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-14 13:20 ` WANG Rui
2026-03-13 16:35 ` hev
2026-03-14 9:50 ` WANG Rui
2026-03-18 10:57 ` Usama Arif
2026-03-18 11:46 ` WANG Rui
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='CAHirt9g=drGaeNN7C1hbND4=zXQifhQyP4cUaCz27=tYpHYgfQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=r@hev.cc \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=ajd@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=npache@redhat.com \
--cc=rmclure@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox