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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 27 May 2019 16:49:40 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/7] mm: extend process_madvise syscall to support vector
 arrary

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:37:26PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-05-19 19:26:13, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:24:21AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-05-19 11:48:20, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:22:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > [Cc linux-api]
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon 20-05-19 12:52:53, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > Currently, process_madvise syscall works for only one address range
> > > > > > so user should call the syscall several times to give hints to
> > > > > > multiple address range.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is that a problem? How big of a problem? Any numbers?
> > > > 
> > > > We easily have 2000+ vma so it's not trivial overhead. I will come up
> > > > with number in the description at respin.
> > > 
> > > Does this really have to be a fast operation? I would expect the monitor
> > > is by no means a fast path. The system call overhead is not what it used
> > > to be, sigh, but still for something that is not a hot path it should be
> > > tolerable, especially when the whole operation is quite expensive on its
> > > own (wrt. the syscall entry/exit).
> > 
> > What's different with process_vm_[readv|writev] and vmsplice?
> > If the range needed to be covered is a lot, vector operation makes senese
> > to me.
> 
> I am not saying that the vector API is wrong. All I am trying to say is
> that the benefit is not really clear so far. If you want to push it
> through then you should better get some supporting data.

I measured 1000 madvise syscall vs. a vector range syscall with 1000
ranges on ARM64 mordern device. Even though I saw 15% improvement but
absoluate gain is just 1ms so I don't think it's worth to support.
I will drop vector support at next revision.

Thanks for the review, Michal!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists