linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Free per cpu pages async to shorten program exit time

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 11 Oct 2021 11:40:12 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     ultrachin@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, brookxu.cn@...il.com,
        chen xiaoguang <xiaoggchen@...cent.com>,
        zeng jingxiang <linuszeng@...cent.com>,
        lu yihui <yihuilu@...cent.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Free per cpu pages async to shorten program exit time

On 11.10.21 11:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 08-10-21 10:17:50, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 08.10.21 08:39, ultrachin@....com wrote:
>>> From: chen xiaoguang <xiaoggchen@...cent.com>
>>>
>>> The exit time is long when program allocated big memory and
>>> the most time consuming part is free memory which takes 99.9%
>>> of the total exit time. By using async free we can save 25% of
>>> exit time.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: chen xiaoguang <xiaoggchen@...cent.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: zeng jingxiang <linuszeng@...cent.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: lu yihui <yihuilu@...cent.com>
>>
>> I recently discussed with Claudio if it would be possible to tear down the
>> process MM deferred, because for some use cases (secure/encrypted
>> virtualization, very large mmaps) tearing down the page tables is already
>> the much more expensive operation.
>>
>> There is mmdrop_async(), and I wondered if one could reuse that concept when
>> tearing down a process -- I didn't look into feasibility, however, so it's
>> just some very rough idea.
> 
> This is not a new problem. Large process tear down can take ages. The
> primary road block has been accounting. This lot of work has to be
> accounted to the proper domain (e.g. cpu cgroup). 

In general, yes. For some setups where admins don't care about that 
accounting (e.g., enabled via some magic toggle for large VMs), I guess 
this accounting isn't the major roadblock, correct?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb