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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <462C2EDE.4090805@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:58:22 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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>,
	jakub@...hat.com, drepper@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE

Rik van Riel wrote:

> I've added a 5th column, with just your mmap_sem patch and
> without my madv_free patch.  It is run with the glibc patch,
> which should make it fall back to MADV_DONTNEED after the
> first MADV_FREE call fails.

Thanks! (I edited slightly so it doesn't wrap)


>   vanilla   new glibc   madv_free    mmap_sem        both
> threads
>
> 1     610         609         596         534         545
> 2    1032        1136        1196        1180        1200
> 4    1070        1128        2014        2027        2024
> 8    1000        1088        1665        2089        2087
> 16    779        1073        1310        2012        1999
> 
> 
> Not doing the mprotect calls is the big one I guess, especially
> the fact that we don't need to take the mmap_sem for writing.

Yes.


> With both our patches, single and two thread performance with
> MySQL sysbench is somewhat better than with just your patch,
> 4 and 8 thread performance are basically the same and just
> your patch gives a slight benefit with 16 threads.
> 
> I guess I should benchmark up to 64 or 128 threads tomorrow,
> to see if this is just luck or if the cache benefit of doing
> the page faults and reusing hot pages is faster than not
> having page faults at all.
> 
> I should run some benchmarks on other systems, too.  Some of
> these results could be an artifact of my quad core CPU.  The
> results could be very different on other systems...

I'm getting the 16 core box out of retirement as we speak :)

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/