linux-kernel - Re: [V4][PATCH 0/4]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]

Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mike Waychison <mikew@...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>,
	Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [V4][PATCH 0/4]page fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY



On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Ying Han wrote:
> 
> Benchmarks:
> case 1. one application has a high count of threads each faulting in
> different pages of a hugefile. Benchmark indicate that this double data
> structure walking in case of major fault results in << 1% performance hit.
> 
> case 2. add another thread in the above application which in a tight loop
> of mmap()/munmap(). Here we measure loop count in the new thread while other
> threads doing the same amount of work as case one. we got << 3% performance
> hit on the Complete Time(benchmark value for case one) and 10% performance
> improvement on the mmap()/munmap() counter.
> 
> This patch helps a lot in cases we have writer which is waitting behind all
> readers, so it could execute much faster.

Hmm. I normally think of "<<" as "much smaller than", but the way you use 
it makes me wonder. In particular, "<< 3%" sounds very odd. If it's much 
smaller than 3%, I'd have expected "<< 1%" again. So it probably isn't.

> benchmarks from Wufengguang:
> Just tested the sparse-random-read-on-sparse-file case, and found the
> performance impact to be 0.4% (8.706s vs 8.744s) in the worst case.
> Kind of acceptable.

Well, have you tried the obvious optimization of _not_ doing the RETRY 
path when atomic_read(&mm->counter) == 1?

After all, if it's not a threaded app, and it doesn't have a possibility 
of concurrent mmap/fault, then why release the lock?

		Linus
--
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/