linux-kernel - Re: scalability regressions related to hugetlb

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: <43faf292-245b-5db5-cce9-369d8fb6bd21@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 14:55:07 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Ray Fucillo <Ray.Fucillo@...ersystems.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: scalability regressions related to hugetlb_fault() changes

[add linux-mm mailing list]

On 3/24/22 13:12, Ray Fucillo wrote:
> In moving to newer versions of the kernel, our customers have experienced dramatic new scalability problems in our database application, InterSystems IRIS.  Our research has narrowed this down to new processes that attach to the database's shared memory segment taking very long delays (in some cases ~100ms!) acquiring the i_mmap_lock_read() in hugetlb_fault() as they fault in the huge page for the first time.  The addition of this lock in hugetlb_fault() matches the versions where we see this problem.  It's not just slowing the new process that incurs the delay, but backing up other processes if the page fault occurs inside a critical section within the database application.
> 
> Is there something that can be improved here?  
> 
> The read locks in hugetlb_fault() contend with write locks that seem to be taken in very common application code paths: shmat(), process exit, fork() (not vfork()), shmdt(), presumably others.  So hugetlb_fault() contending to read turns out to be common.  When the system is loaded, there will be many new processes faulting in pages that may blocks the write lock, which in turn blocks more readers in fault behind it, and so on...  I don't think there's any support for shared page tables in hugetlb to avoid the faults altogether.
> 
> Switching to 1GB huge pages instead of 2MB is a good mitigation in reducing the frequency of fault, but not a complete solution.
> 
> Thanks for considering.
> 
> Ray

-- 
~Randy