| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:03:29 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: skip freeing memory from zones with lots free
> 2.6.28-rc6
> + evice streaming first + skip freeing memory
> + rvr bail out
> + kosaki bail out improve
>
> nr_group 125 130 135 125 130 135
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 67.302 68.269 77.161 89.450 75.328 173.437
> 72.616 72.712 79.060 69.843 74.145 76.217
> 72.475 75.712 77.735 73.531 76.426 85.527
> 69.229 73.062 78.814 72.472 74.891 75.129
> 71.551 74.392 78.564 69.423 73.517 75.544
> 69.227 74.310 78.837 72.543 75.347 79.237
> 70.759 75.256 76.600 70.477 77.848 90.981
> 69.966 76.001 78.464 71.792 78.722 92.048
> 69.068 75.218 80.321 71.313 74.958 78.113
> 72.057 77.151 79.068 72.306 75.644 79.888
>
> avg 70.425 74.208 78.462 73.315 75.683 90.612
> std 1.665 2.348 1.007 5.516 1.514 28.218
> min 67.302 68.269 76.600 69.423 73.517 75.129
> max 72.616 77.151 80.321 89.450 78.722 173.437
>
>
> -> 1 - 10% slow down
> because zone_watermark_ok() is a bit slow function.
>
Next, I'd like to talk about why I think the reason is zone_watermark_ok().
I have zone_watermark_ok() improvement patch.
following patch developed for another issue.
However I observed it solve rvr patch performance degression.
<with following patch>
2.6.28-rc6
+ evice streaming first + skip freeing memory
+ rvr bail out + this patch
+ kosaki bail out improve
nr_group 125 130 135 125 130 135
----------------------------------------------------------
67.302 68.269 77.161 68.534 75.733 79.416
72.616 72.712 79.060 70.868 74.264 76.858
72.475 75.712 77.735 73.215 80.278 81.033
69.229 73.062 78.814 70.780 72.518 75.764
71.551 74.392 78.564 69.631 77.252 77.131
69.227 74.310 78.837 72.325 72.723 79.274
70.759 75.256 76.600 70.328 74.046 75.783
69.966 76.001 78.464 69.014 72.566 77.236
69.068 75.218 80.321 68.373 76.447 76.015
72.057 77.151 79.068 74.403 72.794 75.872
avg 70.425 74.208 78.462 70.747 74.862 77.438
std 1.665 2.348 1.007 1.921 2.428 1.752
min 67.302 68.269 76.600 68.373 72.518 75.764
max 72.616 77.151 80.321 74.403 80.278 81.033
-> ok, performance degression disappeared.
===========================
Subject: [PATCH] mm: zone_watermark_ok() doesn't require small fragment block
Currently, zone_watermark_ok() has a bit unfair logic.
example,
Called zone_watermark_ok(zone, 2, pages_min, 0, 0);
pages_min = 64
free pages = 80
case A.
order nr_pages
--------------------
2 5
1 10
0 30
-> zone_watermark_ok() return 1
case B.
order nr_pages
--------------------
3 10
2 0
1 0
0 0
-> zone_watermark_ok() return 0
IOW, current zone_watermark_ok() tend to prefer small fragment block.
If dividing large block to small block by buddy is slow, abeve logic is reasonable.
However its assumption is not formed at all. linux buddy can treat large block efficiently.
In the order aspect, zone_watermark_ok() is called from get_page_from_freelist() everytime.
The get_page_from_freelist() is one of king of fast path.
In general, fast path require to
- if system has much memory, it work as fast as possible.
- if system doesn't have enough memory, it doesn't need to fast processing.
but need to avoid oom as far as possible.
Unfortunately, following loop has reverse performance tendency.
for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
min >>= 1;
if (free_pages <= min)
return 0;
}
If the system doesn't have enough memory, above loop bail out soon.
But the system have enough memory, this loop work just number of order times.
This patch change zone_watermark_ok() logic to prefer large contenious block.
Result:
test machine:
CPU: ia64 x 8
MEM: 8GB
benchmark:
$ tbench 8 (three times mesurement)
tbench works between about 600sec.
alloc_pages() and zone_watermark_ok() are called about 15,000,000 times.
2.6.28-rc6 this patch
throughput max-latency throughput max-latency
---------------------------------------------------------
1480.92 20.896 1,490.27 19.606
1483.94 19.202 1,482.86 21.082
1478.93 22.215 1,490.57 23.493
avg 1,481.26 20.771 1,487.90 21.394
std 2.06 1.233 3.56 1.602
min 1,478.93 19.202 1,477.86 19.606
max 1,483.94 22.215 1,490.57 23.493
throughput improve about 5MB/sec. it over measurement wobbly.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 16 ++++++----------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Index: b/mm/page_alloc.c
===================================================================
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1227,7 +1227,7 @@ static inline int should_fail_alloc_page
int zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, int order, unsigned long mark,
int classzone_idx, int alloc_flags)
{
- /* free_pages my go negative - that's OK */
+ /* free_pages may go negative - that's OK */
long min = mark;
long free_pages = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_PAGES) - (1 << order) + 1;
int o;
@@ -1239,17 +1239,13 @@ int zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, in
if (free_pages <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
return 0;
- for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
- /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
- free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
- /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
- min >>= 1;
-
- if (free_pages <= min)
- return 0;
+ for (o = order; o < MAX_ORDER; o++) {
+ if (z->free_area[o].nr_free)
+ return 1;
}
- return 1;
+
+ return 0;
}
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists