linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: hugetlbfs: fix hugetlbfs optimization v2

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: <528BC9AA.5020300@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:27:22 -0700
From:	Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: hugetlbfs: fix hugetlbfs optimization v2

On 11/18/2013 11:04 AM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 10:47 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1/3 is a bugfix so it should be applied more urgently. 1/3 is not as
>> fast as the current upstream code in the hugetlbfs + directio extreme
>> 8GB/sec benchmark (but 3/3 should fill the gap later). The code is
>> identical to the one I posted in v1 just rebased on upstream and was
>> developed in collaboration with Khalid who already tested it.
>>
>> 2/3 and 3/3 had very little testing yet, and they're incremental
>> optimization. 2/3 is minor and most certainly worth applying later.
>>
>> 3/3 instead complicates things a bit and adds more branches to the THP
>> fast paths, so it should only be applied if the benchmarks of
>> hugetlbfs + directio show that it is very worthwhile (that has not
>> been verified yet). If it's not worthwhile 3/3 should be dropped (and
>> the gap should be filled in some other way if the gap is not caused by
>> the _mapcount mangling as I guessed). Ideally this should bring even
>> more performance than current upstream code, as current upstream code
>> still increased the _mapcount in gup_fast by mistake, while this
>> eliminates the locked op on the tail page cacheline in gup_fast too
>> (which is required for correctness too).
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> I ran directio benchmark and here are the performance numbers (MBytes/sec):
>
> Block size        3.12         3.12+patch 1      3.12+patch 1,2,3
> ----------        ----         ------------      ----------------
> 1M                8467           8114              7648
> 64K               4049           4043              4175
>
> Performance numbers with 64K reads look good but there is further
> deterioration with 1M reads.
>
> --
> Khalid

Hi Andrea,

I found that a background task running on my test server had influenced 
the performance numbers for 1M reads. I cleaned that problem up and 
re-ran the test. I am seeing 8456 MB/sec with all three patches applied, 
so 1M number is looking good as well.

--
Khalid
--
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/