linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] drivers: base: dynamic memory block creation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:52:53 -0500
From:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] drivers: base: dynamic memory block creation

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 02:37:26PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 01:05:33PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2013 12:43 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 02:31:45PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> >> >> ppc64 has a normal memory block size of 256M (however sometimes as low
> >> >> as 16M depending on the system LMB size), and (I think) x86 is 128M.  With
> >> >> 1TB of RAM and a 256M block size, that's 4k memory blocks with 20 sysfs
> >> >> entries per block that's around 80k items that need be created at boot
> >> >> time in sysfs.  Some systems go up to 16TB where the issue is even more
> >> >> severe.
> >> >
> >> > The x86 developers are working with larger memory sizes and they haven't
> >> > seen the problem in this area, for them it's in other places, as I
> >> > referred to in my other email.
> >>
> >> The SGI guys don't run normal distro kernels and don't turn on memory
> >> hotplug, so they don't see this.  I do the same in my testing of
> >> large-memory x86 systems to speed up my boots.  I'll go stick it back in
> >> there and see if I can generate some numbers for a 1TB machine.
> >>
> >> But, the problem on x86 is at _worst_ 1/8 of the problem on ppc64 since
> >> the SECTION_SIZE is so 8x bigger by default.
> >>
> >> Also, the cost of creating sections on ppc is *MUCH* higher than x86
> >> when amortized across the number of pages that you're initializing.  A
> >> section on ppc64 has to be created for each (2^24/2^16)=256 pages while
> >> one on x86 is created for each (2^27/2^12)=32768 pages.
> >>
> >> Thus, x86 folks with our small pages and large sections tend to be
> >> focused on per-page costs.  The ppc folks with their small sections and
> >> larger pages tend to be focused on the per-section costs.
> >
> > Ah, thanks for the explaination, now it makes more sense why they are
> > both optimizing in different places.
> 
> I had one local patch that sent before, it will probe block size for
> generic x86_64.
> set it to 2G looks more reasonable for system with 1T+ ram.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting we make the block size
a boot time tunable.  It can't be a runtime tunable since the memory blocks are
currently created a boot time.

On ppc64, we can't just just choose a memory block size since it must align
with the underlying LMB (logical memory block) size, set in the hardware ahead
of time.

Seth

--
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/