On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:49 AM Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 2:26 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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% I've collected more stats running QEMU with different numbers of cores. The slowdown values of init_on_free compared to baseline are: 2 CPUs - 5.94% for wall time (20.08% for sys time) 6 CPUs - 7.43% for wall time (23.55% for sys time) 12 CPUs - 8.41% for wall time (24.25% for sys time) 24 CPUs - 9.49% for wall time (17.98% for sys time) I'm building a defconfig of some fixed KMSAN tree with Clang, but that shouldn't matter much. > > > 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 -- 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
