linux-kernel - Re: [v1 0/5] parallelized "struct page" zeroing

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:   Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:26:38 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.or
Subject: Re: [v1 0/5] parallelized "struct page" zeroing

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 07:01:48PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> When deferred struct page initialization feature is enabled, we get a
> performance gain of initializing vmemmap in parallel after other CPUs are
> started. However, we still zero the memory for vmemmap using one boot CPU.
> This patch-set fixes the memset-zeroing limitation by deferring it as well.
> 
> Here is example performance gain on SPARC with 32T:
> base
> https://hastebin.com/ozanelatat.go
> 
> fix
> https://hastebin.com/utonawukof.go
> 
> As you can see without the fix it takes: 97.89s to boot
> With the fix it takes: 46.91 to boot.

How long does it take if we just don't zero this memory at all?  We seem
to be initialising most of struct page in __init_single_page(), so it
seems like a lot of additional complexity to conditionally zero the rest
of struct page.