[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG_fn=Vj6Jk_DY_-0+x6EpbsVh+abpEVcjycBhJxeMH3wuy9rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 10:49:03 +0200
From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] net: apply __GFP_NO_AUTOINIT to AF_UNIX sk_buff allocations
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 2:26 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:53:01AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 04:35:37PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > > Add sock_alloc_send_pskb_noinit(), which is similar to
> > > sock_alloc_send_pskb(), but allocates with __GFP_NO_AUTOINIT.
> > > This helps reduce the slowdown on hackbench in the init_on_alloc mode
> > > from 6.84% to 3.45%.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why the creation of the new function over adding a
> > gfp flag argument to sock_alloc_send_pskb() and updating callers? (There
> > are only 6 callers, and this change already updates 2 of those.)
> >
> > > Slowdown for the initialization features compared to init_on_free=0,
> > > init_on_alloc=0:
> > >
> > > hackbench, init_on_free=1: +7.71% sys time (st.err 0.45%)
> > > hackbench, init_on_alloc=1: +3.45% sys time (st.err 0.86%)
>
> So I've run some of my own wall-clock timings of kernel builds (which
> should be an pretty big "worst case" situation, and I see much smaller
> performance changes:
How many cores were you using? I suspect the numbers may vary a bit
depending on that.
> everything off
> Run times: 289.18 288.61 289.66 287.71 287.67
> Min: 287.67 Max: 289.66 Mean: 288.57 Std Dev: 0.79
> baseline
>
> init_on_alloc=1
> Run times: 289.72 286.95 287.87 287.34 287.35
> Min: 286.95 Max: 289.72 Mean: 287.85 Std Dev: 0.98
> 0.25% faster (within the std dev noise)
>
> init_on_free=1
> Run times: 303.26 301.44 301.19 301.55 301.39
> Min: 301.19 Max: 303.26 Mean: 301.77 Std Dev: 0.75
> 4.57% slower
>
> init_on_free=1 with the PAX_MEMORY_SANITIZE slabs excluded:
> Run times: 299.19 299.85 298.95 298.23 298.64
> Min: 298.23 Max: 299.85 Mean: 298.97 Std Dev: 0.55
> 3.60% slower
>
> So the tuning certainly improved things by 1%. My perf numbers don't
> show the 24% hit you were seeing at all, though.
Note that 24% is the _sys_ time slowdown. The wall time slowdown seen
in this case was 8.34%
> > In the commit log it might be worth mentioning that this is only
> > changing the init_on_alloc case (in case it's not already obvious to
> > folks). Perhaps there needs to be a split of __GFP_NO_AUTOINIT into
> > __GFP_NO_AUTO_ALLOC_INIT and __GFP_NO_AUTO_FREE_INIT? Right now
> > __GFP_NO_AUTOINIT is only checked for init_on_alloc:
>
> I was obviously crazy here. :) GFP isn't present for free(), but a SLAB
> flag works (as was done in PAX_MEMORY_SANITIZE). I'll send the patch I
> used for the above timing test.
>
> --
> Kees Cook
--
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer
Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
