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: <Zm0SWZKcRrngCUUW@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 05:02:33 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, bharata@....com,
	raghavendra.kodsarathimmappa@....com, Michael.Day@....com,
	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Enhancements to Page Migration with Batch
 Offloading via DMA

On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 03:45:20AM +0530, Shivank Garg wrote:
> We conducted experiments to measure folio copy overheads for page
> migration from a remote node to a local NUMA node, modeling page
> promotions for different workload sizes (4KB, 2MB, 256MB and 1GB).
> 
> Setup Information: AMD Zen 3 EPYC server (2-sockets, 32 cores, SMT
> Enabled), 1 NUMA node connected to each socket.
> Linux Kernel 6.8.0, DVFS set to Performance, and cpuinfo_cur_freq: 2 GHz.
> THP, compaction, numa_balancing are disabled to reduce interfernce.
> 
> migrate_pages() { <- t1
> 	..
> 	<- t2
> 	folio_copy()
> 	<- t3 
> 	..
> } <- t4
> 
> overheads Fraction, F= (t3-t2)/(t4-t1)
> Measurement: Mean ± SD is measured in cpu_cycles/page
> Generic Kernel
> 4KB::   migrate_pages:17799.00±4278.25  folio_copy:794±232.87  F:0.0478±0.0199
> 2MB::   migrate_pages:3478.42±94.93  folio_copy:493.84±28.21  F:0.1418±0.0050
> 256MB:: migrate_pages:3668.56±158.47  folio_copy:815.40±171.76  F:0.2206±0.0371
> 1GB::   migrate_pages:3769.98±55.79  folio_copy:804.68±60.07  F:0.2132±0.0134
> 
> Results with patched kernel:
> 1. Offload disabled - folios batch-move using CPU
> 4KB::   migrate_pages:14941.60±2556.53  folio_copy:799.60±211.66  F:0.0554±0.0190
> 2MB::   migrate_pages:3448.44±83.74  folio_copy:533.34±37.81  F:0.1545±0.0085
> 256MB:: migrate_pages:3723.56±132.93  folio_copy:907.64±132.63  F:0.2427±0.0270
> 1GB::   migrate_pages:3788.20±46.65  folio_copy:888.46±49.50  F:0.2344±0.0107
> 
> 2. Offload enabled - folios batch-move using DMAengine
> 4KB::   migrate_pages:46739.80±4827.15  folio_copy:32222.40±3543.42  F:0.6904±0.0423
> 2MB::   migrate_pages:13798.10±205.33  folio_copy:10971.60±202.50  F:0.7951±0.0033
> 256MB:: migrate_pages:13217.20±163.99  folio_copy:10431.20±167.25  F:0.7891±0.0029
> 1GB::   migrate_pages:13309.70±113.93  folio_copy:10410.00±117.77  F:0.7821±0.0023

You haven't measured the important thing though -- what's the cost _to
userspace_?  When the CPU does the copy, the data is now cache-hot in
that CPU's cache.  When the DMA engine does the copy, it's not cache-hot
in any CPU.

Now, this may not be a big problem.  I don't think we do anything to
ensure that the CPU that is going to access the folio in userspace is
the one which does the copy.

But your methodology is wrong.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ