linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] Multigenerational LRU Framework

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:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:08:20 -0600
From:   Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Benjamin Manes <ben.manes@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Michael Larabel <michael@...haellarabel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <michel@...pinasse.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] Multigenerational LRU Framework

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:42 PM Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 13:14 -0600, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:59 AM Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 08:51 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > >    2) It will not scan PTE tables under non-leaf PMD entries
> > > > > that
> > > > > do not
> > > > >       have the accessed bit set, when
> > > > >       CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PARENT_PMD_YOUNG=y.
> > > >
> > > > This assumes  that workloads have reasonable locality. Could
> > > > there
> > > > be a worst case where only one or two pages in each PTE are used,
> > > > so this PTE skipping trick doesn't work?
> > >
> > > Databases with large shared memory segments shared between
> > > many processes come to mind as a real-world example of a
> > > worst case scenario.
> >
> > Well, I don't think you two are talking about the same thing. Andi
> > was
> > focusing on sparsity. Your example seems to be about sharing, i.e.,
> > ihgh mapcount. Of course both can happen at the same time, as I
> > tested
> > here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YHFuL%2FDdtiml4biw@google.com/#t
> >
> > I'm skeptical that shared memory used by databases is that sparse,
> > i.e., one page per PTE table, because the extremely low locality
> > would
> > heavily penalize their performance. But my knowledge in databases is
> > close to zero. So feel free to enlighten me or just ignore what I
> > said.
>
> A database may have a 200GB shared memory segment,
> and a worker task that gets spun up to handle a
> query might access only 1MB of memory to answer
> that query.
>
> That memory could be from anywhere inside the
> shared memory segment. Maybe some of the accesses
> are more dense, and others more sparse, who knows?
>
> A lot of the locality
> will depend on how memory
> space inside the shared memory segment is reclaimed
> and recycled inside the database.

Thanks. Yeah, I guess we'll just need to see more benchmarks from the
database realm. Stay tuned :)