linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show

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: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:27:29 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Suren Baghdasaryan
 <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
 mgorman@...e.de, dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org,
 liam.howlett@...cle.com, corbet@....net, void@...ifault.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
 will@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com,
 david@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, mcgrof@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org,
 nathan@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
 rppt@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
 yosryahmed@...gle.com, yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
 hughd@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org,
 ndesaulniers@...gle.com, vvvvvv@...gle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
 ebiggers@...gle.com, ytcoode@...il.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
 dietmar.eggemann@....com, bsegall@...gle.com, bristot@...hat.com,
 vschneid@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
 iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com, glider@...gle.com,
 elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
 songmuchun@...edance.com, jbaron@...mai.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
 minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
 cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in
 show_mem()

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:16:48 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:07:42 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> >    text         data            bss     dec             hex filename
> > 29161847        18352730        5619716 53134293        32ac3d5 vmlinux.orig
> > 29162286        18382638        5595140 53140064        32ada60 vmlinux.memtag-off		(+5771)
> > 29230868        18887662        5275652 53394182        32ebb06 vmlinux.memtag			(+259889)
> > 29230746        18887662        5275652 53394060        32eba8c vmlinux.memtag-default-on	(+259767) dropped?
> > 29276214        18946374        5177348 53399936        32ed180 vmlinux.memtag-debug		(+265643)  
> 
> If you plan on running this in production, and this increases the size of
> the text by 68k, have you measured the I$ pressure that this may induce?
> That is, what is the full overhead of having this enabled, as it could
> cause more instruction cache misses?
> 
> I wonder if there has been measurements of it off. That is, having this
> configured in but default off still increases the text size by 68k. That
> can't be good on the instruction cache.
> 

I should have read the cover letter ;-)  (someone pointed me to that on IRC):

> Performance overhead:
> To evaluate performance we implemented an in-kernel test executing
> multiple get_free_page/free_page and kmalloc/kfree calls with allocation
> sizes growing from 8 to 240 bytes with CPU frequency set to max and CPU
> affinity set to a specific CPU to minimize the noise. Below are results
> from running the test on Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS with 6.8.0-rc1 kernel on
> 56 core Intel Xeon:

These are micro benchmarks, were any larger benchmarks taken? As
microbenchmarks do not always show I$ issues (because the benchmark itself
will warm up the cache). The cache issue could slow down tasks at a bigger
picture, as it can cause more cache misses.

Running other benchmarks under perf and recording the cache misses between
the different configs would be a good picture to show.

> 
>                         kmalloc                 pgalloc
> (1 baseline)            6.764s                  16.902s
> (2 default disabled)    6.793s (+0.43%)         17.007s (+0.62%)
> (3 default enabled)     7.197s (+6.40%)         23.666s (+40.02%)
> (4 runtime enabled)     7.405s (+9.48%)         23.901s (+41.41%)
> (5 memcg)               13.388s (+97.94%)       48.460s (+186.71%)


> 
> Memory overhead:
> Kernel size:
> 
>    text           data        bss         dec         diff
> (1) 26515311	      18890222    17018880    62424413
> (2) 26524728	      19423818    16740352    62688898    264485
> (3) 26524724	      19423818    16740352    62688894    264481
> (4) 26524728	      19423818    16740352    62688898    264485
> (5) 26541782	      18964374    16957440    62463596    39183

Similar to my builds.


> 
> Memory consumption on a 56 core Intel CPU with 125GB of memory:
> Code tags:           192 kB
> PageExts:         262144 kB (256MB)
> SlabExts:           9876 kB (9.6MB)
> PcpuExts:            512 kB (0.5MB)
> 
> Total overhead is 0.2% of total memory.


All this, and we are still worried about 4k for useful debugging :-/

-- Steve