linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page fault

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 May 2015 10:08:12 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page
 fault

On Wed 13-05-15 11:00:36, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015, Eric B Munson wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 08 May 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri,  8 May 2015 15:33:43 -0400 Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > mlock() allows a user to control page out of program memory, but this
> > > > comes at the cost of faulting in the entire mapping when it is
> > > > allocated.  For large mappings where the entire area is not necessary
> > > > this is not ideal.
> > > > 
> > > > This series introduces new flags for mmap() and mlockall() that allow a
> > > > user to specify that the covered are should not be paged out, but only
> > > > after the memory has been used the first time.
> > > 
> > > Please tell us much much more about the value of these changes: the use
> > > cases, the behavioural improvements and performance results which the
> > > patchset brings to those use cases, etc.
> > > 
> > 
> > To illustrate the proposed use case I wrote a quick program that mmaps
> > a 5GB file which is filled with random data and accesses 150,000 pages
> > from that mapping.  Setup and processing were timed separately to
> > illustrate the differences between the three tested approaches.  the
> > setup portion is simply the call to mmap, the processing is the
> > accessing of the various locations in  that mapping.  The following
> > values are in milliseconds and are the averages of 20 runs each with a
> > call to echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches between each run.
> > 
> > The first mapping was made with MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_LOCKED as a baseline:
> > Startup average:    9476.506
> > Processing average: 3.573
> > 
> > The second mapping was simply MAP_PRIVATE but each page was passed to
> > mlock() before being read:
> > Startup average:    0.051
> > Processing average: 721.859
> > 
> > The final mapping was MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_LOCKONFAULT:
> > Startup average:    0.084
> > Processing average: 42.125
> > 
> 
> Michal's suggestion of changing protections and locking in a signal
> handler was better than the locking as needed, but still significantly
> more work required than the LOCKONFAULT case.
> 
> Startup average:    0.047
> Processing average: 86.431

Have you played with batching? Has it helped? Anyway it is to be
expected that the overhead will be higher than a single mmap call. The
question is whether you can live with it because adding a new semantic
to mlock sounds trickier and MAP_LOCKED is tricky enough already...

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/