linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] (Take 2): transcendent memory ("tmem") for Linux

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:	Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:57:38 -0500
From:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
CC:	npiggin@...e.de, akpm@...l.org, jeremy@...p.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, tmem-devel@....oracle.com,
	kurt.hackel@...cle.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave.mccracken@...cle.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, chris.mason@...cle.com,
	sunil.mushran@...cle.com, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] (Take 2): transcendent memory
 ("tmem") for Linux

Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> Hi Anthony --
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
>   
>> I have trouble mapping this to a VMM capable of overcommit 
>> without just coming back to CMM2.
>>
>> In CMM2 parlance, ephemeral tmem pools is just normal kernel memory 
>> marked in the volatile state, no?
>>     
>
> They are similar in concept, but a volatile-marked kernel page
> is still a kernel page, can be changed by a kernel (or user)
> store instruction, and counts as part of the memory used
> by the VM.  An ephemeral tmem page cannot be directly written
> by a kernel (or user) store,

Why does tmem require a special store?

A VMM can trap write operations pages can be stored on disk 
transparently by the VMM if necessary.  I guess that's the bit I'm missing.

>> It seems to me that an architecture built around hinting 
>> would be more 
>> robust than having to use separate memory pools for this type 
>> of memory 
>> (especially since you are requiring a copy to/from the pool).
>>     
>
> Depends on what you mean by robust, I suppose.  Once you
> understand the basics of tmem, it is very simple and this
> is borne out in the low invasiveness of the Linux patch.
> Simplicity is another form of robustness.
>   

The main disadvantage I see is that you need to explicitly convert 
portions of the kernel to use a data copying API.  That seems like an 
invasive change to me.  Hinting on the other hand can be done in a 
less-invasive way.

I'm not really arguing against tmem, just the need to have explicit 
get/put mechanisms for the transcendent memory areas.

> The copy may be expensive on an older machine, but on newer
> machines copying a page is relatively inexpensive.

I don't think that's a true statement at all :-)  If you had a workload 
where data never came into the CPU cache (zero-copy) and now you 
introduce a copy, even with new system, you're going to see a 
significant performance hit.

>   On a reasonable
> multi-VM-kernbench-like benchmark I'll be presenting at Linux
> Symposium next week, the overhead is on the order of 0.01%
> for a fairly significant savings in IOs.
>   
But how would something like specweb do where you should be doing 
zero-copy IO from the disk to the network?  This is the area where I 
would be concerned.  For something like kernbench, you're already 
bringing the disk data into the CPU cache anyway so I can appreciate 
that the copy could get lost in the noise.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori
--
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/