linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn and early_pfn

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:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:15:08 +0800
From:   Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>,
        Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>,
        Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
        Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>,
        YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn and
 early_pfn_valid



On 3/27/2018 9:02 AM, Wei Yang Wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 08:02:14PM -0700, Jia He wrote:
>> Commit b92df1de5d28 ("mm: page_alloc: skip over regions of invalid pfns
>> where possible") tried to optimize the loop in memmap_init_zone(). But
>> there is still some room for improvement.
>>
>> Patch 1 remain the memblock_next_valid_pfn when CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
>>         is enabled
>> Patch 2 optimizes the memblock_next_valid_pfn()
>> Patch 3~5 optimizes the early_pfn_valid(), I have to split it into parts
>>         because the changes are located across subsystems.
>>
>> I tested the pfn loop process in memmap_init(), the same as before.
>> As for the performance improvement, after this set, I can see the time
>> overhead of memmap_init() is reduced from 41313 us to 24345 us in my
>> armv8a server(QDF2400 with 96G memory).
>>
>> Attached the memblock region information in my server.
>> [   86.956758] Zone ranges:
>> [   86.959452]   DMA      [mem 0x0000000000200000-0x00000000ffffffff]
>> [   86.966041]   Normal   [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x00000017ffffffff]
>> [   86.972631] Movable zone start for each node
>> [   86.977179] Early memory node ranges
>> [   86.980985]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000000200000-0x000000000021ffff]
>> [   86.987666]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000000820000-0x000000000307ffff]
>> [   86.994348]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000003080000-0x000000000308ffff]
>> [   87.001029]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000003090000-0x00000000031fffff]
>> [   87.007710]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000003200000-0x00000000033fffff]
>> [   87.014392]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000003410000-0x000000000563ffff]
>> [   87.021073]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000005640000-0x000000000567ffff]
>> [   87.027754]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000005680000-0x00000000056dffff]
>> [   87.034435]   node   0: [mem 0x00000000056e0000-0x00000000086fffff]
>> [   87.041117]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008700000-0x000000000871ffff]
>> [   87.047798]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008720000-0x000000000894ffff]
>> [   87.054479]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008950000-0x0000000008baffff]
>> [   87.061161]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008bb0000-0x0000000008bcffff]
>> [   87.067842]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008bd0000-0x0000000008c4ffff]
>> [   87.074524]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008c50000-0x0000000008e2ffff]
>> [   87.081205]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008e30000-0x0000000008e4ffff]
>> [   87.087886]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008e50000-0x0000000008fcffff]
>> [   87.094568]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000008fd0000-0x000000000910ffff]
>> [   87.101249]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000009110000-0x00000000092effff]
>> [   87.107930]   node   0: [mem 0x00000000092f0000-0x000000000930ffff]
>> [   87.114612]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000009310000-0x000000000963ffff]
>> [   87.121293]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000009640000-0x000000000e61ffff]
>> [   87.127975]   node   0: [mem 0x000000000e620000-0x000000000e64ffff]
>> [   87.134657]   node   0: [mem 0x000000000e650000-0x000000000fffffff]
>> [   87.141338]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000010800000-0x0000000017feffff]
>> [   87.148019]   node   0: [mem 0x000000001c000000-0x000000001c00ffff]
>> [   87.154701]   node   0: [mem 0x000000001c010000-0x000000001c7fffff]
>> [   87.161383]   node   0: [mem 0x000000001c810000-0x000000007efbffff]
>> [   87.168064]   node   0: [mem 0x000000007efc0000-0x000000007efdffff]
>> [   87.174746]   node   0: [mem 0x000000007efe0000-0x000000007efeffff]
>> [   87.181427]   node   0: [mem 0x000000007eff0000-0x000000007effffff]
>> [   87.188108]   node   0: [mem 0x000000007f000000-0x00000017ffffffff]
> Hi, Jia
>
> I haven't taken a deep look into your code, just one curious question on your
> memory layout.
>
> The log above is printed out in free_area_init_nodes(), which iterates on
> memblock.memory and prints them. If I am not wrong, memory regions added to
> memblock.memory are ordered and merged if possible.
>
> While from your log, I see many regions could be merged but are isolated. For
> example, the last two region:
>
>    node   0: [mem 0x000000007eff0000-0x000000007effffff]
>    node   0: [mem 0x000000007f000000-0x00000017ffffffff]
>
> So I am curious why they are isolated instead of combined to one.
>
> >From the code, the possible reason is the region's flag differs from each
> other. If you have time, would you mind taking a look into this?
>
Hi Wei
I thought these 2 have different flags
[    0.000000] idx=30,region [7eff0000:10000]flag=4     <--- aka 
MEMBLOCK_NOMAP
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x000000007eff0000-0x000000007effffff]
[    0.000000] idx=31,region [7f000000:81000000]flag=0 <--- aka 
MEMBLOCK_NONE
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x000000007f000000-0x00000017ffffffff]

-- 
Cheers,
Jia