linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:22:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	willy@...ux.intel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:

> I'm sure it could have an effect. But why is the common case in SLUB
> for the cacheline to be bouncing? What's the benchmark? What does SLAB
> do in that benchmark, is it faster than SLUB there? What does the
> non-atomic bit unlock do to Willy's database workload?

I saw this in tbench and the test was done on a recent quad core Intel 
cpu. SLAB is 1 - 4% faster than SLUB on the 2 x Quad setup that I am using 
here to test. Not sure if what I think it is is really the issue. I added 
some statistics to SLUB to figure out what exactly is going on and it 
seems that the remote handoff may not be the issue:

Name                   Objects    Alloc     Free   %Fast
skbuff_fclone_cache         33 111953835 111953835  99  99
:0000192                  2666  5283688  5281047  99  99
:0001024                   849  5247230  5246389  83  83
vm_area_struct            1349   119642   118355  91  22
:0004096                    15    66753    66751  98  98
:0000064                  2067    25297    23383  98  78
dentry                   10259    28635    18464  91  45
:0000080                 11004    18950     8089  98  98
:0000096                  1703    12358    10784  99  98
:0000128                   762    10582     9875  94  18
:0000512                   184     9807     9647  95  81
:0002048                   479     9669     9195  83  65
anon_vma                   777     9461     9002  99  71
kmalloc-8                 6492     9981     5624  99  97
:0000768                   258     7174     6931  58  15

slabinfo -a | grep 000192
:0000192     <- xfs_btree_cur filp kmalloc-192 uid_cache tw_sock_TCP 
request_sock_TCPv6 tw_sock_TCPv6 skbuff_head_cache xfs_ili

Likely skbuff_head_cache.

slabinfo skbuff_fclone_cache

Slab Perf Counter       Alloc     Free %Al %Fr
--------------------------------------------------
Fastpath             111953360 111946981  99  99
Slowpath                 1044     7423   0   0
Page Alloc                272      264   0   0
Add partial                25      325   0   0
Remove partial             86      264   0   0
RemoteObj/SlabFrozen      350     4832   0   0
Total                111954404 111954404

Flushes       49 Refill        0
Deactivate Full=325(92%) Empty=0(0%) ToHead=24(6%) ToTail=1(0%)

There is only minimal handoff here.

skbuff_head_cache:

Slab Perf Counter       Alloc     Free %Al %Fr
--------------------------------------------------
Fastpath              5297262  5259882  99  99
Slowpath                 4477    39586   0   0
Page Alloc                937      824   0   0
Add partial                 0     2515   0   0
Remove partial           1691      824   0   0
RemoteObj/SlabFrozen     2621     9684   0   0
Total                 5301739  5299468

Deactivate Full=2620(100%) Empty=0(0%) ToHead=0(0%) ToTail=0(0%)

Some more handoff but still basically the same.

Need to dig into this some more.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/