| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:23:14 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by cgroups optimization in 3.17-rc2
On 09/09/2014 07:50 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> The mctz->lock is only taken when there is, or has been, soft limit
> excess. However, the soft limit defaults to infinity, so unless you
> set it explicitly on the root level, I can't see how this could be
> mctz->lock contention.
>
> It's more plausible that this is the res_counter lock for testing soft
> limit excess - for me, both these locks get inlined into check_events,
> could you please double check you got the right lock?
I got the wrong lock. Here's how it looks after mainline, plus your free_pages_and_swap_cache() patch:
Samples: 2M of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 51647128377
+ 60.60% 1.33% page_fault2_processes [.] testcase ▒
+ 59.14% 0.41% [kernel] [k] page_fault ◆
+ 58.72% 0.01% [kernel] [k] do_page_fault ▒
+ 58.70% 0.08% [kernel] [k] __do_page_fault ▒
+ 58.50% 0.29% [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault ▒
+ 40.14% 0.28% [kernel] [k] do_cow_fault ▒
- 34.56% 34.56% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock ▒
- _raw_spin_lock ▒
- 78.11% __res_counter_charge ▒
res_counter_charge ▒
try_charge ▒
- mem_cgroup_try_charge ▒
+ 99.99% do_cow_fault ▒
- 10.30% res_counter_uncharge_until ▒
res_counter_uncharge ▒
uncharge_batch ▒
uncharge_list ▒
mem_cgroup_uncharge_list ▒
release_pages ▒
+ 4.75% free_pcppages_bulk ▒
+ 3.65% do_cow_fault ▒
+ 2.24% get_page_from_freelist ▒
> You also said that this cost hasn't been there before, but I do see
> that trace in both v3.16 and v3.17-rc3 with roughly the same impact
> (although my machines show less contention than yours). Could you
> please double check that this is in fact a regression independent of
> 05b843012335 ("mm: memcontrol: use root_mem_cgroup res_counter")?
Here's the same workload on the same machine with only Johannes' revert applied:
- 35.92% 35.92% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock ▒
- _raw_spin_lock ▒
- 49.09% get_page_from_freelist ▒
- __alloc_pages_nodemask ▒
+ 99.90% alloc_pages_vma ▒
- 43.67% free_pcppages_bulk ▒
- 100.00% free_hot_cold_page ▒
+ 99.93% free_hot_cold_page_list ▒
- 7.08% do_cow_fault ▒
handle_mm_fault ▒
__do_page_fault ▒
do_page_fault ▒
page_fault ▒
testcase ▒
So I think it's probably part of the same regression.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists