linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements

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, 11 Jul 2012 09:00:30 -0500
From:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements

On 07/11/2012 02:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 06:15 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> zsmapbench measures the copy-based mapping at ~560 cycles for a
>> map/unmap operation on spanned object for both KVM guest and bare-metal,
>> while the page table mapping was ~1500 cycles on a VM and ~760 cycles
>> bare-metal.  The cycles for the copy method will vary with
>> allocation size, however, it is still faster even for the largest
>> allocation that zsmalloc supports.
>>
>> The result is convenient though, as mempcy is very portable :)
> 
> Today, I tested zsmapbench in my embedded board(ARM).
> tlb-flush is 30% faster than copy-based so it's always not win.
> I think it depends on CPU speed/cache size.
> 
> zram is already very popular on embedded systems so I want to use
> it continuously without 30% big demage so I want to keep our old approach
> which supporting local tlb flush. 
> 
> Of course, in case of KVM guest, copy-based would be always bin win.
> So shouldn't we support both approach? It could make code very ugly
> but I think it has enough value.
> 
> Any thought?

Thanks for testing on ARM.

I can add the pgtable assisted method back in, no problem.
The question is by which criteria are we going to choose
which method to use? By arch (i.e. ARM -> pgtable assist,
x86 -> copy, other archs -> ?)?

Also, what changes did you make to zsmapbench to measure
elapsed time/cycles on ARM?  Afaik, rdtscll() is not
supported on ARM.

Thanks,
Seth

--
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/