netdev - Re: Page allocator bottleneck

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: <b59961b4-a587-64b6-7258-951470cf5686@mellanox.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 16:38:31 +0300
From:   Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: Page allocator bottleneck



On 27/04/2018 11:45 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:10:33PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:54:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I ran my tests with your patches.
>>> Initial BW numbers are significantly higher than I documented back then in
>>> this mail-thread.
>>> For example, in driver #2 (see original mail thread), with 6 rings, I now
>>> get 92Gbps (slightly less than linerate) in comparison to 64Gbps back then.
>>>
>>> However, there were many kernel changes since then, I need to isolate your
>>> changes. I am not sure I can finish this today, but I will surely get to it
>>> next week after I'm back from vacation.
>>>
>>> Still, when I increase the scale (more rings, i.e. more cpus), I see that
>>> queued_spin_lock_slowpath gets to 60%+ cpu. Still high, but lower than it
>>> used to be.
>>
>> I wonder if it is on allocation path or free path?
> 
> Just FYI, I have pushed two more commits on top of the branch.
> They should improve free path zone lock contention for MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE
> pages(most kernel code alloc such pages), you may consider apply them if
> free path contention is a problem.
> 

Hi Aaron,
Thanks for the update, I did not analyze the contention yet.
I am back in office and will start testing soon.