* Re: Bug: Performance regression in 1013af4f585f: mm/hugetlb: fix huge_pmd_unshare() vs GUP-fast race
[not found] ` <2dcf12d0-e29c-4c9b-aeac-a0b803d2c2fd@redhat.com>
@ 2025-09-04 12:39 ` Uschakow, Stanislav
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Uschakow, Stanislav @ 2025-09-04 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Hildenbrand, Jann Horn
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, trix@redhat.com, ndesaulniers@google.com,
nathan@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
muchun.song@linux.dev, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, liam.howlett@oracle.com,
osalvador@suse.de, vbabka@suse.cz, stable@vger.kernel.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Hi David,
> From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 1:26 PM
> To: Jann Horn; Uschakow, Stanislav
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org; trix@redhat.com; ndesaulniers@google.com; nathan@kernel.org; akpm@linux-foundation.org; muchun.song@linux.dev; mike.kravetz@oracle.com; lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com; liam.howlett@oracle.com; osalvador@suse.de; vbabka@suse.cz; stable@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Bug: Performance regression in 1013af4f585f: mm/hugetlb: fix huge_pmd_unshare() vs GUP-fast race
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> On 01.09.25 12:58, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 4:30 PM Uschakow, Stanislav <suschako@amazon.de> wrote:
> >> We have observed a huge latency increase using `fork()` after ingesting the CVE-2025-38085 fix which leads to the commit `1013af4f585f: mm/hugetlb: fix huge_pmd_unshare() vs GUP-fast race`. On large machines with 1.5TB of memory with 196 cores, we identified mmapping of 1.2TB of shared memory and forking itself dozens or hundreds of times we see a increase of execution times of a factor of 4. The reproducer is at the end of the email.
> >
> > Yeah, every 1G virtual address range you unshare on unmap will do an
> > extra synchronous IPI broadcast to all CPU cores, so it's not very
> > surprising that doing this would be a bit slow on a machine with 196
> > cores.
>
> What is the use case for this extreme usage of fork() in that context?
> Is it just something people noticed and it's suboptimal, or is this a
> real problem for some use cases?
>
Yes, we have customer reporting huge performance regressions on their workloads. I don't know the software architecture or actual use case for their application though. A execution time increase of at least a factor of 4 is noticeable even with few forks() on those machines.
> --
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb
Thanks
Stanislav
Amazon Web Services Development Center Germany GmbH
Tamara-Danz-Str. 13
10243 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Christian Schlaeger, Jonathan Weiss
Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg unter HRB 257764 B
Sitz: Berlin
Ust-ID: DE 365 538 597
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2025-09-04 12:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <4d3878531c76479d9f8ca9789dc6485d@amazon.de>
[not found] ` <CAG48ez2yrEtEUnG15nbK+hern0gL9W-9hTy3fVY+rdz8QBkSNA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <2dcf12d0-e29c-4c9b-aeac-a0b803d2c2fd@redhat.com>
2025-09-04 12:39 ` Bug: Performance regression in 1013af4f585f: mm/hugetlb: fix huge_pmd_unshare() vs GUP-fast race Uschakow, Stanislav
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox