linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf tools: Make 'struct map

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191014192049.GB15890@krava>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 21:20:49 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf tools: Make 'struct map_shared' truly shared

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 08:10:54PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 05:14:27PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Andi reported that maps cloning is eating lot of memory and
> > it's probably unnecessary, because they keep the same data.
> > 
> > Changing 'struct map_shared' to be a pointer inside 'struct map',
> > so it can be shared on fork. Changing the map__clone function to
> > actually share 'struct map_shared' for cloned maps.
> > 
> > The 'struct map_shared' carries its own refcnt counter, which is
> > incremented when it's assigned to new 'struct map' and decremented
> > when 'struct map' gets deleted in map__delete (its refcnt is 0).
> > 
> > This 'maps sharing' seems to save lot of heap for reports with
> > many forks/cloned mmaps (over 60% in example below).
> 
> The one case I wasn't sure about is with JIT support. So if
> a map gets modified with fixup/start from /tmp/perf-%d 
> in one process, would it impact the other too?
> 
> We may need a COW operation for this (hopefully rare) case.

so the jitted mmaps are inserted into the data file
and processed during report where they can overload
existing maps - thats detected before addition in:

  thread__insert_map
    map_groups__fixup_overlappings
      - which uses COW way -> map__clone(map, false);
        to create new map

other fixups to maps are being done only for kernel maps,
where we dont have a problem, because there's only one copy

jirka