linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: khugepaged: move mm to list tail when MADV_COLD/MADV

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3c75d915-5d7f-4e80-975f-4479393e7139@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:31:58 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Vernon Yang <vernon2gm@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com
Cc: ziy@...dia.com, npache@...hat.com, baohua@...nel.org,
 lance.yang@...ux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: khugepaged: move mm to list tail when
 MADV_COLD/MADV_FREE

On 12/15/25 10:04, Vernon Yang wrote:
> For example, create three task: hot1 -> cold -> hot2. After all three
> task are created, each allocate memory 128MB. the hot1/hot2 task
> continuously access 128 MB memory, while the cold task only accesses
> its memory briefly andthen call madvise(MADV_COLD). However, khugepaged
> still prioritizes scanning the cold task and only scans the hot2 task
> after completing the scan of the cold task.
> 
> So if the user has explicitly informed us via MADV_COLD/FREE that this
> memory is cold or will be freed, it is appropriate for khugepaged to
> scan it only at the latest possible moment, thereby avoiding unnecessary
> scan and collapse operations to reducing CPU wastage.
> 
> Here are the performance test results:
> (Throughput bigger is better, other smaller is better)
> 
> Testing on x86_64 machine:
> 
> | task hot2           | without patch | with patch    |  delta  |
> |---------------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
> | total accesses time |  3.14 sec     |  2.92 sec     | -7.01%  |
> | cycles per access   |  4.91         |  2.07         | -57.84% |
> | Throughput          |  104.38 M/sec |  112.12 M/sec | +7.42%  |
> | dTLB-load-misses    |  288966432    |  1292908      | -99.55% |
> 
> Testing on qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm:
> 
> | task hot2           | without patch | with patch    |  delta  |
> |---------------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
> | total accesses time |  3.35 sec     |  2.96 sec     | -11.64% |
> | cycles per access   |  7.23         |  2.12         | -70.68% |
> | Throughput          |  97.88 M/sec  |  110.76 M/sec | +13.16% |
> | dTLB-load-misses    |  237406497    |  3189194      | -98.66% |

Again, I also don't like that because you make assumptions on a full 
process based on some part of it's address space.

E.g., if a library issues a MADV_COLD on some part of the memory the 
library manages, why should the remaining part of the process suffer as 
well?

This seems to be an heuristic focused on some specific workloads, no?

-- 
Cheers

David