On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:33:08PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, David Rientjes wrote: > > > > > The huge zero page can be reclaimed under memory pressure and, if it is, > > > > it is attempted to be allocted again with gfp flags that attempt memory > > > > compaction that can become expensive. If we are constantly under memory > > > > pressure, it gets freed and reallocated millions of times always trying to > > > > compact memory both directly and by kicking kcompactd in the background. > > > > > > > > It likely should also be per node. > > > > > > Have you benchmarked making the non-huge zero page per-node? > > > > > > > Not since we disable it :) I will, though. The more concerning issue for > > us, modulo CVE-2017-1000405, is the cpu cost of constantly directly > > compacting memory for allocating the hzp in real time after it has been > > reclaimed. We've observed this happening tens or hundreds of thousands > > of times on some systems. It will be 2MB per node on x86 if the data > > suggests we should make it NUMA aware, I don't think the cost is too high > > to leave it persistently available even under memory pressure if > > use_zero_page is enabled. > > > > Measuring access latency to 4GB of memory on Naples I observe ~6.7% > slower access latency intrasocket and ~14% slower intersocket. > > use_zero_page is currently a simple thp flag, meaning it rejects writes > where val != !!val, so perhaps it would be best to overload it with > additional options? I can imagine 0x2 defining persistent allocation so > that the hzp is not freed when the refcount goes to 0 and 0x4 defining if > the hzp should be per node. Implementing persistent allocation fixes our > concern with it, so I'd like to start there. Comments? Why not a separate files? -- Kirill A. Shutemov
