linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] [mm] c0bff412e6: stress-ng.clone.ops_per

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: <6uxnuf2gysgabyai2r77xrqegb7t7cc2dlzjz6upwsgwrnfk3x@cjj6on3wqm4x>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:30:49 +0200
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>, 
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, 
	lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, 
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, 
	WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, linux-mm@...ck.org, ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [mm] c0bff412e6: stress-ng.clone.ops_per_sec
 -2.9% regression

On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 08:49:27AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Yes indeed. fork() can be extremely sensitive to each added instruction.
> 
> I even pointed out to Peter why I didn't add the PageHuge check in there
> originally [1].
> 
> "Well, and I didn't want to have runtime-hugetlb checks in
> PageAnonExclusive code called on certainly-not-hugetlb code paths."
> 
> 
> We now have to do a page_folio(page) and then test for hugetlb.
> 
> 	return folio_test_hugetlb(page_folio(page));
> 
> Nowadays, folio_test_hugetlb() will be faster than at c0bff412e6 times, so
> maybe at least part of the overhead is gone.
> 

I'll note page_folio expands to a call to _compound_head.

While _compound_head is declared as an inline, it ends up being big
enough that the compiler decides to emit a real function instead and
real func calls are not particularly cheap.

I had a brief look with a profiler myself and for single-threaded usage
the func is quite high up there, while it manages to get out with the
first branch -- that is to say there is definitely performance lost for
having a func call instead of an inlined branch.

The routine is deinlined because of a call to page_fixed_fake_head,
which itself is annotated with always_inline.

This is of course patchable with minor shoveling.

I did not go for it because stress-ng results were too unstable for me
to confidently state win/loss.

But should you want to whack the regression, this is what I would look
into.