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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <604427e00904131404g5284478cw126e21b368b35dfc@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:04:23 -0700
From:	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Yes, it should be "< 3%", i will make the change.

>> 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/