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.