linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] hugetlbfs: Limit wait time when trying to share huge PMD

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]

Message-ID: <5229662c-d709-7aca-be4c-53dea1a49fda@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:15:26 +0100
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] hugetlbfs: Limit wait time when trying to share huge
 PMD

On 9/11/19 6:03 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 9/11/19 8:44 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 9/11/19 4:14 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:05:37PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> When allocating a large amount of static hugepages (~500-1500GB) on a
>>>> system with large number of CPUs (4, 8 or even 16 sockets), performance
>>>> degradation (random multi-second delays) was observed when thousands
>>>> of processes are trying to fault in the data into the huge pages. The
>>>> likelihood of the delay increases with the number of sockets and hence
>>>> the CPUs a system has.  This only happens in the initial setup phase
>>>> and will be gone after all the necessary data are faulted in.
>>> Can;t the application just specify MAP_POPULATE?
>> Originally, I thought that this happened in the startup phase when the
>> pages were faulted in. The problem persists after steady state had been
>> reached though. Every time you have a new user process created, it will
>> have its own page table.
> This is still at fault time.  Although, for the particular application it
> may be after the 'startup phase'.
>
>>                          It is the sharing of the of huge page shared
>> memory that is causing problem. Of course, it depends on how the
>> application is written.
> It may be the case that some applications would find the delays acceptable
> for the benefit of shared pmds once they reach steady state.  As you say, of
> course this depends on how the application is written.
>
> I know that Oracle DB would not like it if PMD sharing is disabled for them.
> Based on what I know of their model, all processes which share PMDs perform
> faults (write or read) during the startup phase.  This is in environments as
> big or bigger than you describe above.  I have never looked at/for delays in
> these environments around pmd sharing (page faults), but that does not mean
> they do not exist.  I will try to get the DB group to give me access to one
> of their large environments for analysis.
>
> We may want to consider making the timeout value and disable threshold user
> configurable.

Making it configurable is certainly doable. They can be sysctl
parameters so that the users can reenable PMD sharing by making those
parameters larger.

Cheers,
Longman