lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:50:34 +1000 From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, shak <dshaks@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE Nick Piggin wrote: > Rik van Riel wrote: > >> Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:38:06 -0400 >>> Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've also merged Nick's "mm: madvise avoid exclusive mmap_sem". >>>>> >>>>> - Nick's patch also will help this problem. It could be that your >>>>> patch >>>>> no longer offers a 2x speedup when combined with Nick's patch. >>>>> >>>>> It could well be that the combination of the two is even better, >>>>> but it >>>>> would be nice to firm that up a bit. >>>> >>>> >>>> I'll test that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Well, good news. >> >> It turns out that Nick's patch does not improve peak >> performance much, but it does prevent the decline when >> running with 16 threads on my quad core CPU! >> >> We _definately_ want both patches, there's a huge benefit >> in having them both. >> >> Here are the transactions/seconds for each combination: >> >> vanilla new glibc madv_free kernel madv_free + mmap_sem >> threads >> >> 1 610 609 596 545 >> 2 1032 1136 1196 1200 >> 4 1070 1128 2014 2024 >> 8 1000 1088 1665 2087 >> 16 779 1073 1310 1999 > > > > Is "new glibc" meaning MADV_DONTNEED + kernel with mmap_sem patch? > > The strange thing with your madv_free kernel is that it doesn't > help single-threaded performance at all. So that work to avoid > zeroing the new page is not a win at all there (maybe due to the > cache effects I was worried about?). > > However MADV_FREE does improve scalability, which is interesting. > The most likely reason I can see why that may be the case is that > it avoids mmap_sem when faulting pages back in (I doubt it is due > to avoiding the page allocator, but maybe?). > > So where is the down_write coming from in this workload, I wonder? > Heap management? What syscalls? > > x86_64's rwsems are crap under heavy parallelism (even read-only), > as I fixed in my recent generic rwsems patch. I don't expect MySQL > to be such a mmap_sem microbenchmark, but I wonder how much this > would help? > > What if we ran the private futexes patch to further cut down > mmap_sem contention? Hmm, without the MADV_FREE patch, I wonder if it isn't doing something silly like read-faulting in a ZERO_PAGE then write faulting a new page straight afterwards.. I'll have to try a few tests. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists