linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Code tagging framework and applications

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: <20220902194839.xqzgsoowous72jkz@moria.home.lan>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 15:48:39 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, dave@...olabs.net,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
        void@...ifault.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, changbin.du@...el.com,
        ytcoode@...il.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        bsegall@...gle.com, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
        glider@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, arnd@...db.de,
        jbaron@...mai.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Code tagging framework and applications

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 06:02:12AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/1/22 7:04 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 08:17:47PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 03:53:57PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>> I'd suggest to run something like iperf on a fast hardware. And maybe some
> >>> io_uring stuff too. These are two places which were historically most sensitive
> >>> to the (kernel) memory accounting speed.
> >>
> >> I'm getting wildly inconsistent results with iperf.
> >>
> >> io_uring-echo-server and rust_echo_bench gets me:
> >> Benchmarking: 127.0.0.1:12345
> >> 50 clients, running 512 bytes, 60 sec.
> >>
> >> Without alloc tagging:	120547 request/sec
> >> With:			116748 request/sec
> >>
> >> https://github.com/frevib/io_uring-echo-server
> >> https://github.com/haraldh/rust_echo_bench
> >>
> >> How's that look to you? Close enough? :)
> > 
> > Yes, this looks good (a bit too good).
> > 
> > I'm not that familiar with io_uring, Jens and Pavel should have a better idea
> > what and how to run (I know they've workarounded the kernel memory accounting
> > because of the performance in the past, this is why I suspect it might be an
> > issue here as well).
> 
> io_uring isn't alloc+free intensive on a per request basis anymore, it
> would not be a good benchmark if the goal is to check for regressions in
> that area.

Good to know. The benchmark is still a TCP benchmark though, so still useful.

Matthew suggested
  while true; do echo 1 >/tmp/foo; rm /tmp/foo; done

I ran that on tmpfs, and the numbers with and without alloc tagging were
statistically equal - there was a fair amount of variation, it wasn't a super
controlled test, anywhere from 38-41 seconds with 100000 iterations (and alloc
tagging was some of the faster runs).

But with memcg off, it ran in 32-33 seconds. We're piggybacking on the same
mechanism memcg uses for stashing per-object pointers, so it looks like that's
the bigger cost.