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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 23:37:53 +0800
From:   zhiguojiang <justinjiang@...o.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, opensource.kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm:vmscan: the dirty folio in folio_list skip
 unmap



在 2023/10/24 15:21, zhiguojiang 写道:
>
>
> 在 2023/10/24 15:07, David Hildenbrand 写道:
>> On 24.10.23 04:04, zhiguojiang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 在 2023/10/23 21:01, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 08:44:55PM +0800, zhiguojiang wrote:
>>>>> 在 2023/10/23 20:21, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 04:07:28PM +0800, zhiguojiang wrote:
>>>>>>>> Are you seeing measurable changes for any workloads?  It 
>>>>>>>> certainly seems
>>>>>>>> like you should, but it would help if you chose a test from 
>>>>>>>> mmtests and
>>>>>>>> showed how performance changed on your system.
>>>>>>> In one mmtest, the max times for a invalid recyling of a 
>>>>>>> folio_list dirty
>>>>>>> folio that does not support pageout and has been activated in
>>>>>>> shrink_folio_list() are: cost=51us, exe=2365us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Calculate according to this formula: dirty_cost / total_cost * 
>>>>>>> 100%, the
>>>>>>> recyling efficiency of dirty folios can be improved 53.13%、82.95%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this patch can optimize shrink efficiency and reduce the 
>>>>>>> workload of
>>>>>>> kswapd to a certain extent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kswapd0-96      (     96) [005] .....   387.218548:
>>>>>>> mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive: [Justin] nid 0 nr_scanned 32 
>>>>>>> nr_taken 32
>>>>>>> nr_reclaimed 31 nr_dirty  1 nr_unqueued_dirty  1 nr_writeback 0
>>>>>>> nr_activate[1]  1 nr_ref_keep  0 f RECLAIM_WB_FILE|RECLAIM_WB_ASYNC
>>>>>>> total_cost 96 total_exe 2365 dirty_cost 51 total_exe 2365
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kswapd0-96      (     96) [006] .....   412.822532:
>>>>>>> mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive: [Justin] nid 0 nr_scanned 32 
>>>>>>> nr_taken 32
>>>>>>> nr_reclaimed  0 nr_dirty 32 nr_unqueued_dirty 32 nr_writeback 0
>>>>>>> nr_activate[1] 19 nr_ref_keep 13 f RECLAIM_WB_FILE|RECLAIM_WB_ASYNC
>>>>>>> total_cost 88 total_exe 605  dirty_cost 73 total_exe 605
>>>>>> I appreciate that you can put probes in and determine the cost, 
>>>>>> but do
>>>>>> you see improvements for a real workload?  Like doing a kernel 
>>>>>> compile
>>>>>> -- does it speed up at all?
>>>>> Can you help share a method for testing thread workload, like kswapd?
>>>> Something dirt simple like 'time make -j8'.
>>> Two compilations were conducted separately, and compared to the
>>> unmodified compilation,
>>> the compilation time for adding modified patches had a certain
>>> reduction, as follows:
>>>
>>> Compilation command:
>>> make distclean -j8
>>> make ARCH=x86_64 x86_64_defconfig
>>> time make -j8
>>>
>>> 1.Unmodified Compilation time:
>>> real    2m40.276s
>>> user    16m2.956s
>>> sys     2m14.738s
>>>
>>> real    2m40.136s
>>> user    16m2.617s
>>> sys     2m14.722s
>>>
>>> 2.[Patch v2 1/2] Modified Compilation time:
>>> real    2m40.067s
>>> user    16m3.164s
>>> sys     2m14.211s
>>>
>>> real    2m40.123s
>>> user    16m2.439s
>>> sys     2m14.508s
>>>
>>> 3 [Patch v2 1/2] + [Patch v2 2/2] Modified Compilation time:
>>> real    2m40.367s
>>> user    16m3.738s
>>> sys     2m13.662s
>>>
>>> real    2m40.014s
>>> user    16m3.108s
>>> sys     2m14.096s
>>>
>>
>> To get expressive numbers two iterations are usually not sufficient. 
>> How much memory does you system have? Does vmscan even ever get active?
> Test system memory:  MemTotal:    8161608 kB.  When multiple Apps were 
> opened, vmscan can get active. I can capture a lot of tracelog data 
> through testing, I only posted two sets of tracelog data.
Hi, please help to continue reviewing this path and draw a conclusion on 
whether it can be merged. Thanks.
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists