linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c

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: <200808271654.32721.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:54:32 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c -	bisected

On Wednesday 27 August 2008 06:01, Mike Travis wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> ...
>
> > But yes, for this to be even remotely feasible, there has to be a
> > negligable performance cost associated with it, which right now, we
> > clearly don't have. Given that the number of people running 4096 CPU
> > boxes even in a few years time will still be tiny, punishing the common
> > case is obviously absurd.
> >
> > 	Dave
>
> I did do some fairly extensive benchmarking between configs of NR_CPUS =
> 128 and 4096 and most performance hits were in the neighborhood of < 5% on
> systems with 8 cpus and 4GB of memory (our most common test system).

5% is a pretty nasty performance hit... what sort of benchmarks are we
talking about here?

I just made some pretty crazy changes to the VM to get "only" around 5
or so % performance improvement in some workloads.

What places are making heavy use of cpumasks that causes such a slowdown?
Hopefully callers can mostly be improved so they don't need to use cpumasks
for common cases.

Until then, it would be kind of sad for a distro to ship a generic x86
kernel and lose 5% performance because it is set to 4096 CPUs...

But if I misunderstand and you're talking about specific microbenchmarks to
find the worst case for huge cpumasks, then I take that back.


> [But 
> changing cpumask_t's to be pointers instead of values will likely increase
> this.]  I've tried to be very sensitive to this issue with all my previous
> changes, so convincing the distros to set NR_CPUS=4096 would be as painless
> for them as possible. ;-)
>
> Btw, huge count cpu systems I don't think are that far away.  I believe the
> nextgen Larabbee chips will be geared towards HPC applications [instead of
> just GFX apps], and putting 4 of these chips on a motherboard would add up
> to 512 cpu threads (1024 if they support hyperthreading.)

It would be quite interesting if they make them cache coherent / MP capable.
Will they be?
--
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/