linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:22:43 -0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"minchan.kim@...il.com" <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	"hugh.dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:17:11 -0600 (CST)
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > while I appreciate the goal of reducing contention on this lock...
> > wouldn't step one be to remove the page zeroing from under this
> > lock? that's by far (easily by 10x I would guess) the most
> > expensive thing that's done under the lock, and I would expect a
> > first order of contention reduction just by having the zeroing of a
> > page not done under the lock...
> 
> The main issue is cacheline bouncing. mmap sem is a rw semaphore and
> only held for read during a fault.

depends on the workload; on a many-threads-java workload, you also get
it for write quite a bit (lots of malloc/frees in userspace in addition
to pagefaults).. at which point you do end up serializing on the
zeroing.

There's some real life real big workloads that show this pretty badly;
so far the workaround is to have glibc batch up a lot of the free()s..
but that's just pushing it a little further out.

> 


-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/