| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YHntlmvfx3w79IUn@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:03:34 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Pratik Sampat <psampat@...ux.ibm.com>
CC: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <pratik.r.sampat@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] percpu: partial chunk depopulation
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 01:14:03AM +0530, Pratik Sampat wrote:
>
>
> On 17/04/21 12:39 am, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 12:11:37AM +0530, Pratik Sampat wrote:
> > >
> > > On 17/04/21 12:04 am, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:57:03PM +0530, Pratik Sampat wrote:
> > > > > On 16/04/21 10:43 pm, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 08:58:33PM +0530, Pratik Sampat wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello Dennis,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I apologize for the clutter of logs before, I'm pasting the logs of before and
> > > > > > > after the percpu test in the case of the patchset being applied on 5.12-rc6 and
> > > > > > > the vanilla kernel 5.12-rc6.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 16/04/21 7:48 pm, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 06:26:15PM +0530, Pratik Sampat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hello Roman,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've tried the v3 patch series on a POWER9 and an x86 KVM setup.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My results of the percpu_test are as follows:
> > > > > > > > > Intel KVM 4CPU:4G
> > > > > > > > > Vanilla 5.12-rc6
> > > > > > > > > # ./percpu_test.sh
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 1952 kB
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 219648 kB
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 219648 kB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 5.12-rc6 + with patchset applied
> > > > > > > > > # ./percpu_test.sh
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 2080 kB
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 219712 kB
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 72672 kB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm able to see improvement comparable to that of what you're see too.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, on POWERPC I'm unable to reproduce these improvements with the patchset in the same configuration
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > POWER9 KVM 4CPU:4G
> > > > > > > > > Vanilla 5.12-rc6
> > > > > > > > > # ./percpu_test.sh
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 5888 kB
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 118272 kB
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 118272 kB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 5.12-rc6 + with patchset applied
> > > > > > > > > # ./percpu_test.sh
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 6144 kB
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 119040 kB
> > > > > > > > > Percpu: 119040 kB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if there's any architectural specific code that needs plumbing
> > > > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There shouldn't be. Can you send me the percpu_stats debug output before
> > > > > > > > and after?
> > > > > > > I'll paste the whole debug stats before and after here.
> > > > > > > 5.12-rc6 + patchset
> > > > > > > -----BEFORE-----
> > > > > > > Percpu Memory Statistics
> > > > > > > Allocation Info:
> > > > > > Hm, this looks highly suspicious. Here is your stats in a more compact form:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vanilla
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nr_alloc : 9038 nr_alloc : 97046
> > > > > > nr_dealloc : 6992 nr_dealloc : 94237
> > > > > > nr_cur_alloc : 2046 nr_cur_alloc : 2809
> > > > > > nr_max_alloc : 2178 nr_max_alloc : 90054
> > > > > > nr_chunks : 3 nr_chunks : 11
> > > > > > nr_max_chunks : 3 nr_max_chunks : 47
> > > > > > min_alloc_size : 4 min_alloc_size : 4
> > > > > > max_alloc_size : 1072 max_alloc_size : 1072
> > > > > > empty_pop_pages : 5 empty_pop_pages : 29
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Patched
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nr_alloc : 9040 nr_alloc : 97048
> > > > > > nr_dealloc : 6994 nr_dealloc : 95002
> > > > > > nr_cur_alloc : 2046 nr_cur_alloc : 2046
> > > > > > nr_max_alloc : 2208 nr_max_alloc : 90054
> > > > > > nr_chunks : 3 nr_chunks : 48
> > > > > > nr_max_chunks : 3 nr_max_chunks : 48
> > > > > > min_alloc_size : 4 min_alloc_size : 4
> > > > > > max_alloc_size : 1072 max_alloc_size : 1072
> > > > > > empty_pop_pages : 12 empty_pop_pages : 61
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it looks like the number of chunks got bigger, as well as the number of
> > > > > > empty_pop_pages? This contradicts to what you wrote, so can you, please, make
> > > > > > sure that the data is correct and we're not messing two cases?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it looks like for some reason sidelined (depopulated) chunks are not getting
> > > > > > freed completely. But I struggle to explain why the initial empty_pop_pages is
> > > > > > bigger with the same amount of chunks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, can you, please, apply the following patch and provide an updated statistics?
> > > > > Unfortunately, I'm not completely well versed in this area, but yes the empty
> > > > > pop pages number doesn't make sense to me either.
> > > > >
> > > > > I re-ran the numbers trying to make sure my experiment setup is sane but
> > > > > results remain the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vanilla
> > > > > nr_alloc : 9040 nr_alloc : 97048
> > > > > nr_dealloc : 6994 nr_dealloc : 94404
> > > > > nr_cur_alloc : 2046 nr_cur_alloc : 2644
> > > > > nr_max_alloc : 2169 nr_max_alloc : 90054
> > > > > nr_chunks : 3 nr_chunks : 10
> > > > > nr_max_chunks : 3 nr_max_chunks : 47
> > > > > min_alloc_size : 4 min_alloc_size : 4
> > > > > max_alloc_size : 1072 max_alloc_size : 1072
> > > > > empty_pop_pages : 4 empty_pop_pages : 32
> > > > >
> > > > > With the patchset + debug patch the results are as follows:
> > > > > Patched
> > > > >
> > > > > nr_alloc : 9040 nr_alloc : 97048
> > > > > nr_dealloc : 6994 nr_dealloc : 94349
> > > > > nr_cur_alloc : 2046 nr_cur_alloc : 2699
> > > > > nr_max_alloc : 2194 nr_max_alloc : 90054
> > > > > nr_chunks : 3 nr_chunks : 48
> > > > > nr_max_chunks : 3 nr_max_chunks : 48
> > > > > min_alloc_size : 4 min_alloc_size : 4
> > > > > max_alloc_size : 1072 max_alloc_size : 1072
> > > > > empty_pop_pages : 12 empty_pop_pages : 54
> > > > >
> > > > > With the extra tracing I can see 39 entries of "Chunk (sidelined)"
> > > > > after the test was run. I don't see any entries for "Chunk (to depopulate)"
> > > > >
> > > > > I've snipped the results of slidelined chunks because they went on for ~600
> > > > > lines, if you need the full logs let me know.
> > > > Yes, please! That's the most interesting part!
> > > Got it. Pasting the full logs of after the percpu experiment was completed
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Would you mind to apply the following patch and test again?
> >
> > --
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> > index ded3a7541cb2..532c6a7ebdfd 100644
> > --- a/mm/percpu.c
> > +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> > @@ -2296,6 +2296,9 @@ void free_percpu(void __percpu *ptr)
> > need_balance = true;
> > break;
> > }
> > +
> > + chunk->depopulated = false;
> > + pcpu_chunk_relocate(chunk, -1);
> > } else if (chunk != pcpu_first_chunk && chunk != pcpu_reserved_chunk &&
> > !chunk->isolated &&
> > (pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages[pcpu_chunk_type(chunk)] >
> >
> Sure thing.
>
> I see much lower sideline chunks. In one such test run I saw zero occurrences
> of slidelined chunks
>
So looking at the stats it now works properly. Do you see any savings in
comparison to vanilla? The size of savings can significanlty depend on the exact
size of cgroup-related objects, how many of them fit into a single chunk, etc.
So you might want to play with numbers in the test...
Anyway, thank you very much for the report and your work on testing follow-up
patches! It helped to reveal a serious bug in the implementation (completely
empty sidelined chunks were not released in some cases), which by pure
coincidence wasn't triggered on x86.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists