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  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:	Fri, 06 Jan 2012 01:33:01 -0500
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <>
To:	Tao Ma <>
CC:	KOSAKI Motohiro <>,,,
	David Rientjes <>,
	Minchan Kim <>,
	Mel Gorman <>,
	Johannes Weiner <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: do not drain pagevecs for mlock

(1/6/12 1:30 AM), Tao Ma wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 02:18 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> 2012/1/6 Tao Ma<>:
>>> Hi Kosaki,
>>> On 12/30/2011 06:07 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>>>> Because your test program is too artificial. 20sec/100000times =
>>>>>> 200usec. And your
>>>>>> program repeat mlock and munlock the exact same address. so, yes, if
>>>>>> lru_add_drain_all() is removed, it become near no-op. but it's
>>>>>> worthless comparision.
>>>>>> none of any practical program does such strange mlock usage.
>>>>> yes, I should say it is artificial. But mlock did cause the problem in
>>>>> our product system and perf shows that the mlock uses the system time
>>>>> much more than others. That's the reason we created this program to test
>>>>> whether mlock really sucks. And we compared the result with
>>>>> rhel5(2.6.18) which runs much much faster.
>>>>> And from the commit log you described, we can remove lru_add_drain_all
>>>>> safely here, so why add it? At least removing it makes mlock much faster
>>>>> compared to the vanilla kernel.
>>>> If we remove it, we lose to a test way of mlock. "Memlocked" field of
>>>> /proc/meminfo
>>>> show inaccurate number very easily. So, if 200usec is no avoidable,
>>>> I'll ack you.
>>>> But I'm not convinced yet.
>>> Do you find something new for this?
>> No.
>> Or more exactly, 200usec is my calculation mistake. your program call mlock
>> 3 times per each iteration. so, correct cost is 66usec.
> yes, so mlock can do 15000/s, it is even slower than the whole i/o time
> for some not very fast ssd disk and I don't think it is endurable. I
> guess we should remove it, right? Or you have another other suggestion
> that I can try for it?

read whole thread.

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