linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/4] speed up page allocation for __GFP

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: <96BB0656-F234-4634-853E-E2A747B6ECDB@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jan 2021 21:18:14 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Liang Li <liliang324@...il.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Liang Li <liliangleo@...iglobal.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/4] speed up page allocation for __GFP_ZERO


> Am 23.12.2020 um 13:12 schrieb Liang Li <liliang324@...il.com>:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 4:41 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>>> I was rather saying that for security it's of little use IMHO.
>>>> Application/VM start up time might be improved by using huge pages (and
>>>> pre-zeroing these). Free page reporting might be improved by using
>>>> MADV_FREE instead of MADV_DONTNEED in the hypervisor.
>>>> 
>>>>> this feature, above all of them, which one is likely to become the
>>>>> most strong one?  From the implementation, you will find it is
>>>>> configurable, users don't want to use it can turn it off.  This is not
>>>>> an option?
>>>> 
>>>> Well, we have to maintain the feature and sacrifice a page flag. For
>>>> example, do we expect someone explicitly enabling the feature just to
>>>> speed up startup time of an app that consumes a lot of memory? I highly
>>>> doubt it.
>>> 
>>> In our production environment, there are three main applications have such
>>> requirement, one is QEMU [creating a VM with SR-IOV passthrough device],
>>> anther other two are DPDK related applications, DPDK OVS and SPDK vhost,
>>> for best performance, they populate memory when starting up. For SPDK vhost,
>>> we make use of the VHOST_USER_GET/SET_INFLIGHT_FD feature for
>>> vhost 'live' upgrade, which is done by killing the old process and
>>> starting a new
>>> one with the new binary. In this case, we want the new process started as quick
>>> as possible to shorten the service downtime. We really enable this feature
>>> to speed up startup time for them  :)

Am I wrong or does using hugeltbfs/tmpfs ... i.e., a file not-deleted between shutting down the old instances and firing up the new instance just solve this issue?

>> 
>> Thanks for info on the use case!
>> 
>> All of these use cases either already use, or could use, huge pages
>> IMHO. It's not your ordinary proprietary gaming app :) This is where
>> pre-zeroing of huge pages could already help.
> 
> You are welcome.  For some historical reason, some of our services are
> not using hugetlbfs, that is why I didn't start with hugetlbfs.
> 
>> Just wondering, wouldn't it be possible to use tmpfs/hugetlbfs ...
>> creating a file and pre-zeroing it from another process, or am I missing
>> something important? At least for QEMU this should work AFAIK, where you
>> can just pass the file to be use using memory-backend-file.
>> 
> If using another process to create a file, we can offload the overhead to
> another process, and there is no need to pre-zeroing it's content, just
> populating the memory is enough.

Right, if non-zero memory can be tolerated (e.g., for vms usually has to).

> If we do it that way, then how to determine the size of the file? it depends
> on the RAM size of the VM the customer buys.
> Maybe we can create a file
> large enough in advance and truncate it to the right size just before the
> VM is created. Then, how many large files should be created on a host?

That‘s mostly already existing scheduling logic, no? (How many vms can I put onto a specific machine eventually)

> You will find there are a lot of things that have to be handled properly.
> I think it's possible to make it work well, but we will transfer the
> management complexity to up layer components. It's a bad practice to let
> upper layer components process such low level details which should be
> handled in the OS layer.

It‘s bad practice to squeeze things into the kernel that can just be handled on upper layers ;)