linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe requests"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:57:35 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, willy@...radead.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, pagupta@...hat.com, ttoukan.linux@...il.com,
        tariqt@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for
 irq-safe requests"

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 09:28:33PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 15:53:50 +0100
> Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> 
> > This reverts commit 374ad05ab64d696303cec5cc8ec3a65d457b7b1c. While the
> > patch worked great for userspace allocations, the fact that softirq loses
> > the per-cpu allocator caused problems. It needs to be redone taking into
> > account that a separate list is needed for hard/soft IRQs or alternatively
> > find a cheap way of detecting reentry due to an interrupt. Both are possible
> > but sufficiently tricky that it shouldn't be rushed. Jesper had one method
> > for allowing softirqs but reported that the cost was high enough that it
> > performed similarly to a plain revert. His figures for netperf TCP_STREAM
> > were as follows
> > 
> > Baseline v4.10.0  : 60316 Mbit/s
> > Current 4.11.0-rc6: 47491 Mbit/s
> > This patch        : 60662 Mbit/s
> (should instead state "Jesper's patch" or "His patch")
> 

Yes, you are correct of course.

> Ran same test (8 parallel netperf TCP_STREAMs) with this patch applied:
> 
>  This patch 60106 Mbit/s (average of 7 iteration 60 sec runs)
> 
> With these speeds I'm starting to hit the memory bandwidth of my machines.
> Thus, the 60 GBit/s measurement cannot be used to validate the
> performance impact of reverting this compared to my softirq patch, it
> only shows we fixed the regression.  (I'm suspicious as I see a higher
> contention on the page allocator lock (4% vs 1.3%) with this patch and
> still same performance... but lets worry about that outside the rc-series).
> 

Well, in itself that limitation highlights that evaluating this is
challenging and needs careful treatment. Otherwise two different
approaches can seem equivalent only because a hardware-related
bottleneck was at play.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs