| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <bj2hysiacl5qb7ooridrwnvhgefqxfw3sgd3r2u3btaygft6vv@tuq4kvzxghai>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:32:22 -0400
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Always sanity check anon_vma first for per-vma locks
* Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> [240426 11:08]:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 7:00 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 04:14:16AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > Suren, what would you think to this?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > index 6e2fe960473d..e495adcbe968 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > @@ -5821,15 +5821,6 @@ struct vm_area_struct *lock_vma_under_rcu(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > if (!vma_start_read(vma))
> > > goto inval;
> > >
> > > - /*
> > > - * find_mergeable_anon_vma uses adjacent vmas which are not locked.
> > > - * This check must happen after vma_start_read(); otherwise, a
> > > - * concurrent mremap() with MREMAP_DONTUNMAP could dissociate the VMA
> > > - * from its anon_vma.
> > > - */
> > > - if (unlikely(vma_is_anonymous(vma) && !vma->anon_vma))
> > > - goto inval_end_read;
> > > -
> > > /* Check since vm_start/vm_end might change before we lock the VMA */
> > > if (unlikely(address < vma->vm_start || address >= vma->vm_end))
> > > goto inval_end_read;
> > >
> > > That takes a few insns out of the page fault path (good!) at the cost
> > > of one extra trip around the fault handler for the first fault on an
> > > anon vma. It makes the file & anon paths more similar to each other
> > > (good!)
> > >
> > > We'd need some data to be sure it's really a win, but less code is
> > > always good.
> >
> > Intel's 0day got back to me with data and it's ridiculously good.
> > Headline figure: over 3x throughput improvement with vm-scalability
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/202404261055.c5e24608-oliver.sang@intel.com/
> >
> > I can't see why it's that good. It shouldn't be that good. I'm
> > seeing big numbers here:
> >
> > 4366 ą 2% +565.6% 29061 perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses
> >
> > and the code being deleted is only checking vma->vm_ops and
> > vma->anon_vma. Surely that cache line is referenced so frequently
> > during pagefault that deleting a reference here will make no difference
> > at all?
>
> That indeed looks overly good. Sorry, I didn't have a chance to run
> the benchmarks on my side yet because of the ongoing Android bootcamp
> this week.
>
> >
> > We've clearly got an inlining change. viz:
> >
> > 72.57 -72.6 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access
> > 73.28 -72.6 0.70 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access
> > 72.55 -72.5 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access
> > 69.93 -69.9 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.lock_mm_and_find_vma.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access
> > 69.12 -69.1 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.down_read_killable.lock_mm_and_find_vma.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault
> > 68.78 -68.8 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rwsem_down_read_slowpath.down_read_killable.lock_mm_and_find_vma.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault
> > 65.78 -65.8 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irq.rwsem_down_read_slowpath.down_read_killable.lock_mm_and_find_vma.do_user_addr_fault
> > 65.43 -65.4 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock_irq.rwsem_down_read_slowpath.down_read_killable.lock_mm_and_find_vma
> >
> > 11.22 +86.5 97.68 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.down_write_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff.ksys_mmap_pgoff.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> > 11.14 +86.5 97.66 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rwsem_down_write_slowpath.down_write_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff.ksys_mmap_pgoff.do_syscall_64
> > 3.17 ą 2% +94.0 97.12 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.osq_lock.rwsem_optimistic_spin.rwsem_down_write_slowpath.down_write_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff
> > 3.45 ą 2% +94.1 97.59 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rwsem_optimistic_spin.rwsem_down_write_slowpath.down_write_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff.ksys_mmap_pgoff
> > 0.00 +98.2 98.15 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.vm_mmap_pgoff.ksys_mmap_pgoff.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> > 0.00 +98.2 98.16 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ksys_mmap_pgoff.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> >
> > so maybe the compiler has been able to eliminate some loads from
> > contended cachelines?
> >
> > 703147 -87.6% 87147 ą 2% perf-stat.ps.context-switches
> > 663.67 ą 5% +7551.9% 50783 vm-scalability.time.involuntary_context_switches
> > 1.105e+08 -86.7% 14697764 ą 2% vm-scalability.time.voluntary_context_switches
> >
> > indicates to me that we're taking the mmap rwsem far less often (those
> > would be accounted as voluntary context switches).
> >
> > So maybe the cache miss reduction is a consequence of just running for
> > longer before being preempted.
> >
> > I still don't understand why we have to take the mmap_sem less often.
> > Is there perhaps a VMA for which we have a NULL vm_ops, but don't set
> > an anon_vma on a page fault?
>
> I think the only path in either do_anonymous_page() or
> do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page() that skips calling anon_vma_prepare() is
> the "Use the zero-page for reads" here:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/mm/memory.c#L4265. I
> didn't look into this particular benchmark yet but will try it out
> once I have some time to benchmark your change.
>
This test is read-only:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git/tree/case-small-allocs-mt
And the zero-page looks to be what's going on here to me as well.
Would such a change have impact on people who "fault in" the memory
instead of asking for memory to be populated through an API?
Thanks,
Liam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists