| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <49fefc1c-81dd-98f8-7da5-5b5e85d919e4@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:45:33 +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 3/28/2018 8:30 AM, Wei Yang Wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 03:15:08PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
>>
>> 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]
> Thanks.
>
> Hmm, I am not that familiar with those flags, while they look like to indicate
> the physical capability of this range.
>
> MEMBLOCK_NONE no special
> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG hotplug-able
> MEMBLOCK_MIRROR high reliable
> MEMBLOCK_NOMAP no direct map
>
> While these flags are not there when they are first added into the memory
> region. When you look at the memblock_add_range(), the last parameter passed
> is always 0. This means current several separated ranges reflect the physical
> memory capability layout.
>
> Then, why this layout is so scattered? As you can see several ranges are less
> than 1M.
>
> If, just my assumption, we could merge some of them, we could have a better
> performance. Less ranges, less searching time.
Thanks for your suggestions, Wei
Need further digging and will consider to improve it in another patchset.
--
Cheers,
Jia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists