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:   Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:11:36 -0700
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        mst@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        will@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        osalvador@...e.de
Cc:     yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, pagupta@...hat.com,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com, nitesh@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com,
        lcapitulino@...hat.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
        ying.huang@...el.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/8] mm: Add per-cpu logic to page shuffling

On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 10:14 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.09.19 19:25, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Change the logic used to generate randomness in the suffle path so that we
> > can avoid cache line bouncing. The previous logic was sharing the offset
> > and entropy word between all CPUs. As such this can result in cache line
> > bouncing and will ultimately hurt performance when enabled.
> 
> So, usually we perform such changes if there is real evidence. Do you
> have any such performance numbers to back your claims?

I'll have to go rerun the test to get the exact numbers. The reason this
came up is that my original test was spanning NUMA nodes and that made
this more expensive as a result since the memory was both not local to the
CPU and was being updated by multiple sockets.

I will try building a pair of host kernels with shuffling enabled and this
patch applied to one and can add that data to the patch description.

- Alex


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ