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: <42733616-5f8f-47ce-a861-b00701069221@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 14:41:54 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox
 <willy@...radead.org>, Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>,
 riel@...riel.com, cl@...ux.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Ze Zuo <zuoze1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] mm: align larger anonymous mappings on THP
 boundaries

On 08/05/2024 14:37, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/5/8 16:36, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 08/05/2024 08:48, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/5/8 1:17, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 8:53 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/05/2024 14:53, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024/5/7 19:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/intel/lmbench/blob/master/src/lat_mem_rd.c#L95
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> suggest. If you want to try something semi-randomly; it might be useful
>>>>>>>>> to rule
>>>>>>>>> out the arm64 contpte feature. I don't see how that would be interacting
>>>>>>>>> here if
>>>>>>>>> mTHP is disabled (is it?). But its new for 6.9 and arm64 only. Disable
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> ARM64_CONTPTE (needs EXPERT) at compile time.
>>>>>>>> I don't enabled mTHP, so it should be not related about ARM64_CONTPTE,
>>>>>>>> but will have a try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After ARM64_CONTPTE disabled, memory read latency is similar with
>>>>>> ARM64_CONTPTE
>>>>>> enabled(default 6.9-rc7), still larger than align anon reverted.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK thanks for trying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the source for lmbench, its malloc'ing (512M + 8K) up front and
>>>>> using
>>>>> that for all sizes. That will presumably be considered "large" by malloc and
>>>>> will be allocated using mmap. So with the patch, it will be 2M aligned.
>>>>> Without
>>>>> it, it probably won't. I'm still struggling to understand why not aligning
>>>>> it in
>>>>> virtual space would make it more performant though...
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I'm confused too.
>>> Me too, I get a smaps[_rollup] for 0.09375M size, the biggest difference
>>> for anon shows below, and all attached.
>>
>> OK, a bit more insight; during initialization, the test makes 2 big malloc
>> calls; the first is 1M and the second is 512M+8K. I think those 2 are the 2 vmas
>> below (malloc is adding an extra page to the allocation, presumably for
>> management structures).
>>
>> With efa7df3e3bb5 applied, the 1M allocation is allocated at a non-THP-aligned
>> address. All of its pages are populated (see permutation() which allocates and
>> writes it) but none of them are THP (obviously - its only 1M and THP is only
>> enabled for 2M). But the 512M region is allocated at a THP-aligned address. And
>> the first page is populated with a THP (presumably faulted when malloc writes to
>> its control structure page before the application even sees the allocated buffer.
>>
>> In contrast, when efa7df3e3bb5 is reverted, neither of the vmas are THP-aligned,
>> and therefore the 512M region abutts the 1M region and the vmas are merged in
>> the kernel. So we end up with the single 525328 kB region. There are no THPs
>> allocated here (due to alignment constraiints) so we end up with the 1M region
>> fully populated with 4K pages as before, and only the malloc control page plus
>> the parts of the buffer that the application actually touches being populated in
>> the 512M region.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the application never touches the 1M region during the
>> test so it should be cache-cold. It only touches the first part of the 512M
>> buffer it needs for the size of the test (96K here?). The latency of allocating
>> the THP will have been consumed during test setup so I doubt we are seeing that
>> in the test results and I don't see why having a single TLB entry vs 96K/4K=24
>> entries would make it slower.
> 
> It is strange, and even more stranger, I got another machine(old machine
> 128 core and the new machine 96 core, but with same L1/L2 cache size
> per-core), the new machine without this issue, will contact with our
> hardware team, maybe some different configurations(prefetch or some
> other similar hardware configurations) , thank for all the suggestion
> and analysis!

No problem, you're welcome!

> 
> 
>>
>> It would be interesting to know the address that gets returned from malloc for
>> the 512M region if that's possible to get (in both cases)? I guess it is offset
>> into the first page. Perhaps it is offset such that with the THP alignment case
>> the 96K of interest ends up straddling 3 cache lines (cache line is 64K I
>> assume?), but for the unaligned case, it ends up nicely packed in 2?
> 
> CC zuoze, please help to check this.
> 
> Thank again.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ryan
>>
>>>
>>> 1) with efa7df3e3bb5 smaps
>>>
>>> ffff68e00000-ffff88e03000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
>>> Size:             524300 kB
>>> KernelPageSize:        4 kB
>>> MMUPageSize:           4 kB
>>> Rss:                2048 kB
>>> Pss:                2048 kB
>>> Pss_Dirty:          2048 kB
>>> Shared_Clean:          0 kB
>>> Shared_Dirty:          0 kB
>>> Private_Clean:         0 kB
>>> Private_Dirty:      2048 kB
>>> Referenced:         2048 kB
>>> Anonymous:          2048 kB // we have 1 anon thp
>>> KSM:                   0 kB
>>> LazyFree:              0 kB
>>> AnonHugePages:      2048 kB
>>
>> Yes one 2M THP shown here.
>>
>>> ShmemPmdMapped:        0 kB
>>> FilePmdMapped:         0 kB
>>> Shared_Hugetlb:        0 kB
>>> Private_Hugetlb:       0 kB
>>> Swap:                  0 kB
>>> SwapPss:               0 kB
>>> Locked:                0 kB
>>> THPeligible:           1
>>> VmFlags: rd wr mr mw me ac
>>> ffff88eff000-ffff89000000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
>>> Size:               1028 kB
>>> KernelPageSize:        4 kB
>>> MMUPageSize:           4 kB
>>> Rss:                1028 kB
>>> Pss:                1028 kB
>>> Pss_Dirty:          1028 kB
>>> Shared_Clean:          0 kB
>>> Shared_Dirty:          0 kB
>>> Private_Clean:         0 kB
>>> Private_Dirty:      1028 kB
>>> Referenced:         1028 kB
>>> Anonymous:          1028 kB // another large anon
>>
>> This is not THP, since you only have 2M THP enabled. This will be 1M of 4K page
>> allocations + 1 4K page malloc control structure, allocated and accessed by
>> permutation() during test setup.
>>
>>> KSM:                   0 kB
>>> LazyFree:              0 kB
>>> AnonHugePages:         0 kB
>>> ShmemPmdMapped:        0 kB
>>> FilePmdMapped:         0 kB
>>> Shared_Hugetlb:        0 kB
>>> Private_Hugetlb:       0 kB
>>> Swap:                  0 kB
>>> SwapPss:               0 kB
>>> Locked:                0 kB
>>> THPeligible:           0
>>> VmFlags: rd wr mr mw me ac
>>>
>>> and the smap_rollup
>>>
>>> 00400000-fffff56bd000 ---p 00000000 00:00 0 [rollup]
>>> Rss:                4724 kB
>>> Pss:                3408 kB
>>> Pss_Dirty:          3338 kB
>>> Pss_Anon:           3338 kB
>>> Pss_File:             70 kB
>>> Pss_Shmem:             0 kB
>>> Shared_Clean:       1176 kB
>>> Shared_Dirty:        420 kB
>>> Private_Clean:         0 kB
>>> Private_Dirty:      3128 kB
>>> Referenced:         4344 kB
>>> Anonymous:          3548 kB
>>> KSM:                   0 kB
>>> LazyFree:              0 kB
>>> AnonHugePages:      2048 kB
>>> ShmemPmdMapped:        0 kB
>>> FilePmdMapped:         0 kB
>>> Shared_Hugetlb:        0 kB
>>> Private_Hugetlb:       0 kB
>>> Swap:                  0 kB
>>> SwapPss:               0 kB
>>> Locked:                0 kB
>>>
>>> 2) without efa7df3e3bb5 smaps
>>>
>>> ffff9845b000-ffffb855f000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
>>> Size:             525328 kB
>>
>> This is a merged-vma version of the above 2 regions.
>>
>>> KernelPageSize:        4 kB
>>> MMUPageSize:           4 kB
>>> Rss:                1128 kB
>>> Pss:                1128 kB
>>> Pss_Dirty:          1128 kB
>>> Shared_Clean:          0 kB
>>> Shared_Dirty:          0 kB
>>> Private_Clean:         0 kB
>>> Private_Dirty:      1128 kB
>>> Referenced:         1128 kB
>>> Anonymous:          1128 kB // only large anon
>>> KSM:                   0 kB
>>> LazyFree:              0 kB
>>> AnonHugePages:         0 kB
>>> ShmemPmdMapped:        0 kB
>>> FilePmdMapped:         0 kB
>>> Shared_Hugetlb:        0 kB
>>> Private_Hugetlb:       0 kB
>>> Swap:                  0 kB
>>> SwapPss:               0 kB
>>> Locked:                0 kB
>>> THPeligible:           1
>>> VmFlags: rd wr mr mw me ac
>>>
>>> and the smap_rollup,
>>>
>>> 00400000-ffffca5dc000 ---p 00000000 00:00 0 [rollup]
>>> Rss:                2600 kB
>>> Pss:                1472 kB
>>> Pss_Dirty:          1388 kB
>>> Pss_Anon:           1388 kB
>>> Pss_File:             84 kB
>>> Pss_Shmem:             0 kB
>>> Shared_Clean:       1000 kB
>>> Shared_Dirty:        424 kB
>>> Private_Clean:         0 kB
>>> Private_Dirty:      1176 kB
>>> Referenced:         2220 kB
>>> Anonymous:          1600 kB
>>> KSM:                   0 kB
>>> LazyFree:              0 kB
>>> AnonHugePages:         0 kB
>>> ShmemPmdMapped:        0 kB
>>> FilePmdMapped:         0 kB
>>> Shared_Hugetlb:        0 kB
>>> Private_Hugetlb:       0 kB
>>> Swap:                  0 kB
>>> SwapPss:               0 kB
>>> Locked:                0 kB
>>>


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ