linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] cifsd: add file operations

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: <20210322144042.GO1719932@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:40:42 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifsd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, smfrench@...il.com,
        hyc.lee@...il.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
        ronniesahlberg@...il.com, aurelien.aptel@...il.com,
        aaptel@...e.com, sandeen@...deen.net, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        colin.king@...onical.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] cifsd: add file operations

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:57:18PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 06:03:21PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (21/03/22 08:15), Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > 
> > > What's the scenario for which your allocator performs better than slub
> > > 
> > 
> > IIRC request and reply buffers can be up to 4M in size. So this stuff
> > just allocates a number of fat buffers and keeps them around so that
> > it doesn't have to vmalloc(4M) for every request and every response.
> 
> Do we have any data suggesting it is faster than vmalloc?

Oh, I have no trouble believing it's faster than vmalloc.  Here's
the fast(!) path that always has memory available, never does retries.
I'm calling out the things I perceive as expensive on the right hand side.
Also, I'm taking the 4MB size as the example.

vmalloc()
  __vmalloc_node()
    __vmalloc_node_range()
      __get_vm_area_node()
				[allocates vm_struct]
	alloc_vmap_area()
				[allocates vmap_area]
				[takes free_vmap_area_lock]
	  __alloc_vmap_area()
	    find_vmap_lowest_match
				[walks free_vmap_area_root]
				[takes vmap_area_lock]
      __vmalloc_area_node()
				... array_size is 8KiB, we call __vmalloc_node
	__vmalloc_node
				[everything we did above, all over again,
				 two more allocations, two more lock acquire]
	alloc_pages_node(), 1024 times
	vmap_pages_range_noflush()
	  vmap_range_noflush()
				[allocate at least two pages for PTEs]

There's definitely some low handling fruit here.  __vmalloc_area_node()
should probably call kvmalloc_node() instead of __vmalloc_node() for
table sizes > 4KiB.  But a lot of this is inherent to how vmalloc works,
and we need to put a cache in front of it.  Just not this one.