linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Transparent on-demand memory setup initialization embedded in the (GFP) buddy allocator

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:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:37:43 -0500
From:	Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	<holt@....com>, <rob@...dley.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Transparent on-demand memory setup initialization embedded
 in the (GFP) buddy allocator

On 06/26/2013 10:35 PM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:30:02 PM UTC+8, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:22:48 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mi...@...nel.org> 
> wrote:
> >
> > > except that on 32 TB
> > > systems we don't spend ~2 hours initializing 8,589,934,592 page 
> heads.
> >
> > That's about a million a second which is crazy slow - even my 
> prehistoric desktop
> > is 100x faster than that.
> >
> > Where's all this time actually being spent?
>
> The complexity of a directory-lookup architecture to make the 
> (intrinsically unscalable) cache-coherency protocol scalable gives you 
> a ~1us roundtrip to remote NUMA nodes.
>
> Probably a lot of time is spent in some memsets, and RMW cycles which 
> are setting page bits, which are intrinsically synchronous, so the 
> initialising core can't get to 12 or so outstanding memory transactions.
>
> Since EFI memory ranges have a flag to state if they are zerod (which 
> may be a fair assumption for memory on non-bootstrap processor NUMA 
> nodes), we can probably collapse the RMWs to just writes.
>
> A normal write will require a coherency cycle, then a fetch and a 
> writeback when it's evicted from the cache. For this purpose, 
> non-temporal writes would eliminate the cache line fetch and give a 
> massive increase in bandwidth. We wouldn't even need a store-fence as 
> the initialising core is the only one online.
>
> Daniel

Could you elaborate a bit more? or suggest a specific area to look at?

After some experiments with trying to just set some fields in the struct 
page directly I haven't been able to produce any improvements.  Of 
course there is lots about the area which I don't have much experience with.

Nate

--
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/