linux-kernel - madvise failure

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090507121012.GA17048@ub>
Date:	Thu, 7 May 2009 14:10:17 +0200
From:	"Andries E. Brouwer" <Andries.Brouwer@....nl>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: madvise failure

In an application something like
	p = mmap(0, sz, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0);
	madvise(p, sz, MADV_SEQUENTIAL);
is done for a small number of files, each with a size of a few GB.
A single sequential pass is done over these files - essentially a merge.

On an old machine the madvise is useful, and decreases total time.
But on a more recent machine, with more memory, the madvise makes
things worse. There, it seems better not to reveal to the kernel
that the data will be read sequentially.

Timing (six files of 4GB each, quadcore Intel Q9550, 16GB memory,
kernel 2.6.27 [Ubuntu], two other processes active):
with madvise, 7 runs: real time varying 9m10s - 37m29s,
without madvise, 6 runs: real time fairly constant 5m45s - 5m54s.

Andries

--
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/