[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180629194117.01b2d31e805808eee5c97b4d@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:41:17 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Mark Brand <markbrand@...gle.com>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] khwasan: kernel hardware assisted address
sanitizer
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:45:08 +0200 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> What kind of memory consumption testing would you like to see?
> >
> > Well, 100kb or so is a teeny amount on virtually any machine. I'm
> > assuming the savings are (much) more significant once the machine gets
> > loaded up and doing work?
>
> So with clean kernel after boot we get 40 kb memory usage. With KASAN
> it is ~120 kb, which is 200% overhead. With KHWASAN it's 50 kb, which
> is 25% overhead. This should approximately scale to any amounts of
> used slab memory. For example with 100 mb memory usage we would get
> +200 mb for KASAN and +25 mb with KHWASAN. (And KASAN also requires
> quarantine for better use-after-free detection). I can explicitly
> mention the overhead in %s in the changelog.
>
> If you think it makes sense, I can also make separate measurements
> with some workload. What kind of workload should I use?
Whatever workload people were running when they encountered problems
with KASAN memory consumption ;)
I dunno, something simple. `find / > /dev/null'?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists