linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] mm, hugetlb: retry if failed to allocate and there is concurrent user

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:	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:31:21 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] mm, hugetlb: retry if failed to allocate and
 there is concurrent user

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 17:02 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> wrote:
> 
> > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
> > This makes reserved pool shortage just for a little while and this cause
> > faulting thread who can get hugepages to get a SIGBUS signal.
> > 
> > To solve this problem, we already have a nice solution, that is,
> > a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex. This blocks other threads to dive into
> > a fault handler. This solve the problem clearly, but it introduce
> > performance degradation, because it serialize all fault handling.
> > 
> > Now, I try to remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex to get rid of
> > performance degradation.
> 
> So the whole point of the patch is to improve performance, but the
> changelog doesn't include any performance measurements!
> 
> Please, run some quantitative tests and include a nice summary of the
> results in the changelog.

I was actually spending this afternoon testing these patches with Oracle
(I haven't seen any issues so far) and unless Joonsoo already did so, I
want to run these by the libhugetlb test cases - I got side tracked by
futexes though :/

Please do consider that performance wise I haven't seen much in
particular. The thing is, I started dealing with this mutex once I
noticed it as the #1 hot lock in Oracle DB starts, but then once the
faults are done, it really goes away. So I wouldn't say that the mutex
is a bottleneck except for the first few minutes.

> 
> This is terribly important, because if the performance benefit is
> infinitesimally small or negative, the patch goes into the bit bucket ;)

Well, this mutex is infinitesimally ugly and needs to die (as long as
performance isn't hurt).

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/