Message-ID: <CALmYWFvEaYZHBDy74V4gmEExTuMpYg3G+qGUvjL5WtpSVrVqRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 19:58:57 -0700
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>
To: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, 
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, 
	pedro.falcato@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, 
	mpe@...erman.id.au, vbabka@...e.cz, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] mremap refactor: check src address for vma
 boundaries first.

Hi Oliver

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 7:39 PM Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> hi, Jeff,
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 01:19:06PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > Hi Oliver,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 11:16 AM Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:14 AM <jeffxu@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
> > > >
> > > > mremap doesn't allow relocate, expand, shrink across VMA boundaries,
> > > > refactor the code to check src address range before doing anything on
> > > > the destination, i.e. destination won't be unmapped, if src address
> > > > failed the boundaries check.
> > > >
> > > > This also allows us to remove can_modify_mm from mremap.c, since
> > > > the src address must be single VMA, can_modify_vma is used.
> > > >
> > > > It is likely this will improve the performance on mremap, previously
> > > > the code does sealing check using can_modify_mm for the src address range,
> > > > and the new code removed the loop (used by can_modify_mm).
> > > >
> > > > In order to verify this patch doesn't regress on mremap, I added tests in
> > > > mseal_test, the test patch can be applied before mremap refactor patch or
> > > > checkin independently.
> > > >
> > > > Also this patch doesn't change mseal's existing schematic: if sealing fail,
> > > > user can expect the src/dst address isn't updated. So this patch can be
> > > > applied regardless if we decided to go with current out-of-loop approach
> > > > or in-loop approach currently in discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the perf test report by stress-ng [1] title:
> > > > 8be7258aad: stress-ng.pagemove.page_remaps_per_sec -4.4% regression
> > > >
> > > > The test is using below for testing:
> > > > stress-ng --timeout 60 --times --verify --metrics --no-rand-seed --pagemove 64
> > > >
> > > > I can't repro this using ChromeOS, the pagemove test shows large value
> > > > of stddev and stderr, and can't reasonably refect the performance impact.
> > > >
> > > > For example: I write a c program [2] to run the above pagemove test 10 times
> > > > and calculate the stddev, stderr, for 3 commits:
> > > >
> > > > 1> before mseal feature is added:
> > > > Ops/sec:
> > > >   Mean     : 3564.40
> > > >   Std Dev  : 2737.35 (76.80% of Mean)
> > > >   Std Err  : 865.63 (24.29% of Mean)
> > > >
> > > > 2> after mseal feature is added:
> > > > Ops/sec:
> > > >   Mean     : 2703.84
> > > >   Std Dev  : 2085.13 (77.12% of Mean)
> > > >   Std Err  : 659.38 (24.39% of Mean)
> > > >
> > > > 3> after current patch (mremap refactor)
> > > > Ops/sec:
> > > >   Mean     : 3603.67
> > > >   Std Dev  : 2422.22 (67.22% of Mean)
> > > >   Std Err  : 765.97 (21.26% of Mean)
> > > >
> > > > The result shows 21%-24% stderr, this means whatever perf improvment/impact
> > > > there might be won't be measured correctly by this test.
> > > >
> > > > This test machine has 32G memory,  Intel(R) Celeron(R) 7305, 5 CPU.
> > > > And I reboot the machine before each test, and take the first 10 runs with
> > > > run_stress_ng 10
> > > >
> > > > (I will run longer duration to see if test still shows large stdDev,StdErr)
> > > >
> > > I took more samples (100 run ), the stddev/stderr is smaller, however
> > > still not at a range that can reasonably measure the perf improvement
> > > here.
> > >
> > > The tests were taken using the same machine as (10 times run above)
> > > and exact the same steps: i.e. change to certain kernel commit, reboot
> > > test device, take the first test result.
> > >
> > > 1> Before mseal feature is added:
> > > Statistics:
> > > Ops/sec:
> > >   Mean     : 1733.26
> > >   Std Dev  : 842.13 (48.59% of Mean)
> > >   Std Err  : 84.21 (4.86% of Mean)
> > >
> > > 2> After mseal feature is added
> > > Statistics:
> > > Ops/sec:
> > >   Mean     : 1701.53
> > >   Std Dev  : 1017.29 (59.79% of Mean)
> > >   Std Err  : 101.73 (5.98% of Mean)
> > >
> > > 3> After mremap refactor (this patch)
> > > Statistics:
> > > Ops/sec:
> > >   Mean     : 1097.04
> > >   Std Dev  : 860.67 (78.45% of Mean)
> > >   Std Err  : 86.07 (7.85% of Mean)
> > >
> > > Summary: even when the stderr is down to 4%-%8 percentage range, the
> > > stddev is still too big.
> > >
> > > Hence, there are other unknown, random variables that impact this test.
> > >
> > I could not repro the 4% degradation with my test machine
> > (Chromebook), this can be entirely due to the specific test and this
> > test machine.
> >
> > Do you think it is possible to do a few more tests ? This time I like
> > to have a larger sample size (100 run)
> >
> > stress-ng --timeout 60 --times --verify --metrics --no-rand-seed --pagemove 64
> >
> > Please run the test for each commit following the exact steps, e.g.
> > reboot the machine, run the test, get the first 100 results for
> > sample. Please don't select or drop any unstable report because then
> > the data will be biased. If possible, please includes stddiv and
> > stderr for the data (or raw data if not possible, and I will do
> > post-processing)
> >
> > for 3 commits:
> > -> this patch.
>
> what's the base of it? could I directly apply this patch upon the commit
> what you said "after mseal feature" as below?
>
> > -> after mseal feature
> > -> before mseal feature
>
> could you exlictly point to two commit-id?
sure

this patch
8be7258a: mseal: add mseal syscall
ff388fe5c: mseal: wire up mseal syscall

> >
> > Thank you for your time and assistance in helping me on understanding
> > this issue.
>
> due to resource constraint, please expect that we need several days to finish
> this test request.
No problem.

Thanks for your help!
-Jeff

> >
> > Best regards,
> > -Jeff
> >
> > > -Jeff
> > >
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202408041602.caa0372-oliver.sang@intel.com/
> > > > [2] https://github.com/peaktocreek/mmperf/blob/main/run_stress_ng.c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Xu (2):
> > > >   mseal:selftest mremap across VMA boundaries.
> > > >   mseal: refactor mremap to remove can_modify_mm
> > > >
> > > >  mm/internal.h                           |  24 ++
> > > >  mm/mremap.c                             |  77 +++----
> > > >  mm/mseal.c                              |  17 --
> > > >  tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > >  4 files changed, 353 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.46.0.76.ge559c4bf1a-goog
> > > >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists