linux-kernel - Re: mmap() scalability in the presence of the MAP

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]

Message-ID: <1357232977.1886.17.camel@mesosphere.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:09:37 +0700
From:	Roman Dubtsov <dubtsov@...il.com>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: mmap() scalability in the presence of the MAP_POPULATE flag

On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 16:09 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > Is there an interest in fixing this or concurrent mmaps() from the same
> > process are too much of a corner case to worry about it?
> 
> Funny this comes up again. I actually have a patch series that is
> supposed to do that:
> [PATCH 0/9] Avoid populating unbounded num of ptes with mmap_sem held
> 
> However, the patches are still pending, didn't get much review
> (probably not enough for Andrew to take them at this point), and I
> think everyone forgot about them during the winter break.
> 
> Care to have a look at that thread and see if it works for you ?
> 
> (caveat: you will possibly also need "[PATCH 10/9] mm: make
> do_mmap_pgoff return populate as a size in bytes, not as a bool" to
> make the series actually work for you)

I applied the patches on top of 3.7.1. Here're the results for 4 threads
concurrently mmap()-ing 10 64MB buffers in a loop without munmap()-s.
The data is from a Nehalem i7-920 single-socket 4-core CPU. I've also
added the older data I have for the 3.6.11 (patched and not) for
reference.

3.6.11 vanilla, do not populate: 0.001 seconds
3.6.11 vanilla, populate via a loop: 0.216 seconds
3.6.11 vanilla, populate via MAP_POPULATE: 0.358 seconds 

3.6.11 + crude patch, do not populate: 0.002 seconds
3.6.11 + crude patch, populate via loop: 0.215 seconds
3.6.11 + crude patch, populate via MAP_POPULATE: 0.217 seconds

3.7.1 vanilla, do not populate: 0.001 seconds
3.7.1 vanilla, populate via a loop: 0.216 seconds
3.7.1 vanilla, populate via MAP_POPULATE: 0.411 seconds

3.7.1 + patch series, do not populate: 0.001 seconds
3.7.1 + patch series, populate via loop: 0.216 seconds
3.7.1 + patch series, populate via MAP_POPULATE: 0.273 seconds

So, the patch series mentioned above do improve performance but as far
as I can read the benchmarking data there's still some performance left
on the table.

Regards,
Roma

--
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/