linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV

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]

Message-ID: <46298BE8.8020900@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:58:32 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, shak <dshaks@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Rik van Riel a écrit :
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:38:06 -0400
>>> Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've also merged Nick's "mm: madvise avoid exclusive mmap_sem".
>>>>>
>>>>> - Nick's patch also will help this problem.  It could be that your 
>>>>> patch
>>>>>   no longer offers a 2x speedup when combined with Nick's patch.
>>>>>
>>>>>   It could well be that the combination of the two is even better, 
>>>>> but it
>>>>>   would be nice to firm that up a bit.  
>>>> I'll test that.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> Well, good news.
>>
>> It turns out that Nick's patch does not improve peak
>> performance much, but it does prevent the decline when
>> running with 16 threads on my quad core CPU!
>>
>> We _definately_ want both patches, there's a huge benefit
>> in having them both.
>>
>> Here are the transactions/seconds for each combination:
>>
>>    vanilla   new glibc  madv_free kernel   madv_free + mmap_sem
>> threads
>>
>> 1     610         609             596                545
> 
> 545 tps versus 610 tps for one thread ? It seems quite bad, no ?
> 
> Could you please find an explanation for this ?

I have no idea why this happens.  Especially the last one,
going from a write lock to a read lock on the mmap_sem
should not make ANY difference whatsoever since we're
running single threaded!

>> 2    1032        1136            1196               1200
>> 4    1070        1128            2014               2024
>> 8    1000        1088            1665               2087
>> 16    779        1073            1310               1999

Performance with 2 database threads is way better though,
and performance with 4 or more threads more than doubles...

If you have an explanation on why single threaded performance
went down a little on my quad core system, please let me know.

Does performance suffer at all on a real UP system?

-- 
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world, and those who believe it already is.  Each group
calls the other unpatriotic.
-
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/