linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1][PATCH]page_fault retry with NOPAGE

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: <20081127130817.GP28285@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:08:17 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, edwintorok@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1][PATCH]page_fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 01:28:41AM -0800, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >Hmm. How quantifiable is the benefit? Does it actually matter that you
> >can read the proc file much faster? (this is for some automated workload
> >management daemon or something, right?)
> 
> Correct.  I don't recall the numbers from the pathelogical cases we were 
> seeing, but iirc, it was on the order of 10s of seconds, likely 
> exascerbated by slower than usual disks.  I've been digging through my 
> inbox to find numbers without much success -- we've been using a variant 
> of this patch since 2.6.11.
> 
> Török however identified mmap taking on the order of several 
> milliseconds due to this exact problem:
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/12/185

Turns out to be a different problem.


> >Would it be possible to reduce mmap()/munmap() activity? eg. if it is
> >due to a heap memory allocator, then perhaps do more batching or set
> >some hysteresis.
> 
> I know our tcmalloc team had made great strides to reduce mmap_sem 
> contention for the heap, but there are various other bits of the stack 
> that really want to mmap files..
> 
> We generally try to avoid such things, but sometimes it a) can't be 
> easily avoided (third party libraries for instance) and b) when it hits 
> us, it affects the overall health of the machine/cluster (the monitoring 
> daemons get blocked, which isn't very healthy).

Are you doing appropriate posix_fadvise to prefetch in the files before
faulting, and madvise hints if appropriate?

--
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/