linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: remove unlikly NULL from kfree

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: <1237997658.2132.193.camel@calx>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:14:18 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: remove unlikly NULL from kfree

On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 11:08 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Steven,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > > > OK, so according to Steven, audit_syscall_exit() is one such call-site
> > > > > that shows up in the traces. I don't really understand what's going on
> > > > > there but if it is sane, maybe that warrants the removal of unlikely()
> > > > > from kfree(). Hmm?
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:47 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > After disabling AUDIT_SYSCALLS I have this:
> > > > 
> > > >  # cat /debug/tracing/trace | sort -u
> > > > 
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (ext3_get_acl+0x1e0/0x3f0 [ext3])
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (free_bitmap+0x29/0x70)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (free_tty_struct+0x1d/0x40)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (ftrace_graph_exit_task+0x1e/0x20)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (inet_sock_destruct+0x1cb/0x2a0)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (ip_cork_release+0x24/0x50)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (keyctl_join_session_keyring+0x5a/0x70)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (key_user_lookup+0x183/0x220)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (kobject_set_name_vargs+0x43/0x50)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (netlink_release+0x1a4/0x2f0)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (release_sysfs_dirent+0x20/0xc0)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (sysfs_open_file+0x1c8/0x3e0)
> > > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (tty_write+0x16a/0x290)
> > > > 
> > > > I added a hook to only record when NULL is passed into kfree.
> > > > 
> > > > Also note, that after disabling AUDIT_SYSCALLS I now only have roughly 7% 
> > > > NULL hit rate. Still, unlikely is probably not a benefit here.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for doing this. Do you mean that 93% hit ratio is not enough to
> > > be a performance gain?
> > 
> > I think it was Christoph Lameter (good you Cc'd him) told me that anything 
> > less that 99% is not worthy of a (un)likely macro.
> > 
> > I honestly don't know.
> 
> I think the theory is that gcc and the CPU can handle normal branch 
> predictions well. But if you use one of the prediction macros, gcc 
> (and some archs) behaves differently, such that taking the wrong branch 
> can cost more than the time saved with all the other correct hits.
> 
> Again, I'm not sure. I haven't done the bench marks. Perhaps someone else 
> is more apt at knowing the details here.

>>From first principles, we can make a reasonable model of branch
prediction success with a branch cache:

               hot cache     cold cache  cold cache  cold cache 
               w|w/o hint                good hint   bad hint
p near 0       +             +           +           -
p near .5      0             0           0           0
p near 1       +             -           +           -

(this assumes the CPU is biased against branching in the cold cache
case)

Branch prediction miss has a penalty measured in some smallish number of
cycles. So the impact in cycles/sec[1] is (p(miss) * penalty) * (calls /
sec). Because the branch cache kicks in and hides our unlikely hint with
a hot cache, we can't get a high calls/sec, so to have much impact,
we've got to have a very high probably of a missed branch (p near 1)
_and_ cold cache. 

So for CPUs with a branch cache, unlikely hints only make sense in
fairly extreme cases. And I think that includes most CPU families these
days as it's pretty much required to get much advantage from making the
CPU clock faster than the memory bus. 

We'd have a lot of trouble benchmarking this meaningfully as hot caches
kill the effect. And it would of course depend directly on a given CPU's
branch cache size and branch miss penalty, numbers that vary from model
to model. So I think unless we can confidently state that a branch is
rarely taken, there's very little upside to adding unlikely.

On the other hand, there's also very little downside until our hint is
grossly inaccurate. So there's a huge hysteresis here: if p is < .99,
not much point adding unlikely. If p is > .1, not much point removing
it.

[1] Note that cycles/sec is dimensionless as cycles and seconds are both
measures of time. So impact here is in units of very small fractions of
a percent.
-- 
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux


--
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/