linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] migration: only migrate_prep() once per move

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: <49E5A9DC.2050309@inria.fr>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:33:16 +0200
From:	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] migration: only migrate_prep() once per move_pages()

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:32:10 +0200
> Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> migrate_prep() is fairly expensive (72us on 16-core barcelona 1.9GHz).
>> Commit 3140a2273009c01c27d316f35ab76a37e105fdd8 improved move_pages()
>> throughput by breaking it into chunks, but it also made migrate_prep()
>> be called once per chunk (every 128pages or so) instead of once per
>> move_pages().
>>
>> This patch reverts to calling migrate_prep() only once per chunk
>> as we did before 2.6.29.
>> It is also a followup to commit 0aedadf91a70a11c4a3e7c7d99b21e5528af8d5d
>>     mm: move migrate_prep out from under mmap_sem
>>
>> This improves migration throughput on the above machine from 600MB/s
>> to 750MB/s.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
>>
>>     
> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>
> I think this patch is good. page migration is best-effort syscall ;)
>   

My next feeling now is about improving migrate_prep() itself. It makes
the move_pages() startup overhead very high.

But lru_add_drain_all() touches some code that I am far from
understanding :/ Can we imagine using IPI instead of a deferred
work_struct for this kind of things? Or maybe, for each processor, check
whether drain_cpu_pagevecs() would have something to do before actually
scheduling the local work_struct? It's racy, but migrate_prep() doesn't
guarantee anyway that pages won't be moved out of the LRU before the
actual migration, so...

Also I don't see why the cost of lru_add_drain_all() seems to increase
linearly with the number of cores in the machine. There may be some lock
contention, but it should scale better when there's pretty-much nothing
in the CPU lists...

> BTW, current users of sys_move_pages() does retry when it gets -EBUSY ?
>   

I'd say they ignore it since it doesn't happen often :)

Brice

--
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/