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]
Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 2011 19:17:09 +0100
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <>
To:	Dave Hansen <>
	Michael J Wolf <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] more detailed per-process transparent
 hugepage statistics


On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 09:54:34AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Just FYI, I did some profiling on a workload that constantly split and
> joined pages.  Very little of the overhead was in the scanning itself,
> so I think you're dead-on here.

Yep, my way to deduce it has been to set both to 100%, and check the
rate of increase of
/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/khugepaged/full_scans vs
/sys/kernel/mm/ksm/full_scans and the differences is enormous. So a
100% CPU ksmd scan can probably be followed more than well with a 1%
CPU khugepaged scan and probably achieve the exact same hugepage ratio
of a 100% khugepaged scan. The default khugepaged scan is super
paranoid (it has to be, considering the default ksm scan is
zero). Maybe we can still increase the default pages_to_scan a bit. I
suspect most of the current cost should be in the scheduler and that
only accounts for 1 kthread schedule event every 10 sec.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists