linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/hugetlb] c77c0a8ac4: will-it-scale.per_process

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:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:52:21 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/hugetlb] c77c0a8ac4: will-it-scale.per_process_ops
 15.9% improvement

On Fri 17-01-20 14:56:28, Feng Tang wrote:
> Hi Waiman and Michal,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:57:14AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 1/14/20 4:12 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 14-01-20 16:56:37, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >> Greeting,
> > >>
> > >> FYI, we noticed a 15.9% improvement of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> commit: c77c0a8ac4c522638a8242fcb9de9496e3cdbb2d ("mm/hugetlb: defer freeing of huge pages if in non-task context")
> > >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > > This is more than surprising because the patch has only changed the
> > > behavior for hugetlb pages freed from the (soft)interrupt context and
> > > that should be a very rare event. Does the test really generate a lot of
> > > those?
> > >
> > Yes, I have the same question. I was not expecting to see any
> > performance impact.
> 
> We have the same question and did some further check.
> 
> This is the "pagefault3" test case of will-it-scale, and is  
> mmap/get_page/munmap test. The source code is: 
> https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/blob/master/tests/page_fault3.c 
> 
> And its running on LKP does NOT involve any hugetlb actions, as
> could be checking HugePages_* in /proc/meminfo.
> 
> We also did another check, reverted c77c0a8ac4c5 and simply added
> some printk inside free_huge_page(), which can also bring 15%
> improvement.
> 
> So one possible reason could be the commit changes the cache
> alignment of other kernel codes in final bzImage, which happens
> to hugely affect this test case.

This sounds like the most logical explanation. The question is whether
we can somehow achieve the same without adding random printks or code
that doesn't matter ;)
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs