linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 06/12] mm: zero struct pages during initialization

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:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 08:26:57 -0400
From:   Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        x86@...nel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        willy@...radead.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        sam@...nborg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        bob.picco@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/12] mm: zero struct pages during initialization

On 10/04/2017 04:45 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-10-17 11:22:35, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/03/2017 09:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 20-09-17 16:17:08, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>>>> Add struct page zeroing as a part of initialization of other fields in
>>>> __init_single_page().
>>>>
>>>> This single thread performance collected on: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8895
>>>> v3 @ 2.60GHz with 1T of memory (268400646 pages in 8 nodes):
>>>>
>>>>                           BASE            FIX
>>>> sparse_init     11.244671836s   0.007199623s
>>>> zone_sizes_init  4.879775891s   8.355182299s
>>>>                     --------------------------
>>>> Total           16.124447727s   8.362381922s
>>>
>>> Hmm, this is confusing. This assumes that sparse_init doesn't zero pages
>>> anymore, right? So these number depend on the last patch in the series?
>>
>> Correct, without the last patch sparse_init time won't change.
> 
> THen this is just misleading.
> 

OK, I will re-arrange patches the way you suggested earlier.

Pasha