linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV

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:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 16:10:28 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
        "Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)" 
        <longpeng2@...wei.com>, Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
        Anthony Yznaga <anthony.yznaga@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV_DOEXEC

>>> Until recently, the CPUs only having 4 1GB TLB entries.  I'm sure we
>>> still have customers using that generation of CPUs.  2MB pages perform
>>> better than 1GB pages on the previous generation of hardware, and I
>>> haven't seen numbers for the next generation yet.
>>
>> I read that somewhere else before, yet we have heavy 1 GiB page users,
>> especially in the context of VMs and DPDK.
> 
> I wonder if those users actually benchmarked.  Or whether the memory
> savings worked out so well for them that the loss of TLB performance
> didn't matter.

These applications are extremely performance sensitive (i.e., RT 
workloads), that's why I'm wondering. I recall that they are most 
certainly using more than 4 GiB memory in real applications.

E.g., the doc [1] even has a note that "For 64-bit applications, it is 
recommended to use 1 GB hugepages if the platform supports them."


[1] https://doc.dpdk.org/guides-16.04/linux_gsg/sys_reqs.html

> 
>> So, it only works for hugetlbfs in case uffd is not in place (-> no
>> per-process data in the page table) and we have an actual shared mappings.
>> When unsharing, we zap the PUD entry, which will result in allocating a
>> per-process page table on next fault.
> 
> I think uffd was a huge mistake.  It should have been a filesystem
> instead of a hack on the side of anonymous memory.

Yes it was. Especially, looking at all the special-casing, for example, 
even in mm/pagewalk.c.

> 
>> I will rephrase my previous statement "hugetlbfs just doesn't raise these
>> problems because we are special casing it all over the place already". For
>> example, not allowing to swap such pages. Disallowing MADV_DONTNEED. Special
>> hugetlbfs locking.
> 
> Sure, that's why I want to drag this feature out of "oh this is a
> hugetlb special case" and into "this is something Linux supports".

I would have understood the move to optimize SHMEM internally - similar 
to how we seem to optimize hugetlbfs SHMEM right now internally. 
(although sharing page tables for shmem can still be quite tricky)

I did not follow why we have to play games with MAP_PRIVATE, and having 
private anonymous pages shared between processes that don't COW, 
introducing new syscalls etc.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb