linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page initialization within each node

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:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 08:01:38 -0800
From:   Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To:     "Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)" <elliott@....com>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "aaron.lu@...el.com" <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "bsd@...hat.com" <bsd@...hat.com>,
        "darrick.wong@...cle.com" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "jgg@...lanox.com" <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        "jwadams@...gle.com" <jwadams@...gle.com>,
        "jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        "mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com" <Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
        "prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com" <prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com>,
        "rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "steven.sistare@...cle.com" <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        "tim.c.chen@...el.com" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page
 initialization within each node

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:15:46PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
> > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 11:54 AM
> > To: Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) <elliott@....com>
> > Cc: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>; linux-mm@...ck.org;
> > kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; aarcange@...hat.com;
> > aaron.lu@...el.com; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; alex.williamson@...hat.com;
> > bsd@...hat.com; darrick.wong@...cle.com; dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com;
> > jgg@...lanox.com; jwadams@...gle.com; jiangshanlai@...il.com;
> > mhocko@...nel.org; mike.kravetz@...cle.com; Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com;
> > prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com; rdunlap@...radead.org;
> > steven.sistare@...cle.com; tim.c.chen@...el.com; tj@...nel.org;
> > vbabka@...e.cz
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page
> > initialization within each node
> > 
> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 03:48:14AM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Persistent
> > Memory) wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-kernel-
> > > > owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Jordan
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 10:56 AM
> > > > Subject: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page
> > > > initialization within each node
> > > >
> ...
> > > > In testing, a reasonable value turned out to be about a quarter of the
> > > > CPUs on the node.
> > > ...
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * We'd like to know the memory bandwidth of the chip to
> > > >         calculate the
> > > > +	 * most efficient number of threads to start, but we can't.
> > > > +	 * In testing, a good value for a variety of systems was a
> > > >         quarter of the CPUs on the node.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	nr_node_cpus = DIV_ROUND_UP(cpumask_weight(cpumask), 4);
> > >
> > >
> > > You might want to base that calculation on and limit the threads to
> > > physical cores, not hyperthreaded cores.
> > 
> > Why?  Hyperthreads can be beneficial when waiting on memory.  That said, I
> > don't have data that shows that in this case.
> 
> I think that's only if there are some register-based calculations to do while
> waiting. If both threads are just doing memory accesses, they'll both stall, and
> there doesn't seem to be any benefit in having two contexts generate the IOs
> rather than one (at least on the systems I've used). I think it takes longer
> to switch contexts than to just turnaround the next IO.

(Sorry for the delay, Plumbers is over now...)

I guess we're both just waving our hands without data.  I've only got x86, so
using a quarter of the CPUs rules out HT on my end.  Do you have a system that
you can test this on, where using a quarter of the CPUs will involve HT?

Thanks,
Daniel