linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] slub: set a criteria for slub node partial adding

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:43:13 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"penberg@...nel.org" <penberg@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] slub: set a criteria for slub node partial adding

On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 15:28 +0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Shaohua Li wrote:
> 
> > interesting. I did similar experiment before (try to sort the page
> > according to free number), but it appears quite hard. The free number of
> > a page is dynamic, eg more slabs can be freed when the page is in
> > partial list. And in netperf test, the partial list could be very very
> > long. Can you post your patch, I definitely what to look at it.
> 
> It was over a couple of years ago and the slub code has changed 
> significantly since then, but you can see the general concept of the "slab 
> thrashing" problem with netperf and my solution back then:
> 
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839191416478
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839203016592
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839202916583
> 
> I also had a separate patchset that, instead of this approach, would just 
> iterate through the partial list in get_partial_node() looking for 
> anything where the number of free objects met a certain threshold, which 
> still defaulted to 25% and instantly picked it.  The overhead was taking 
> slab_lock() for each page, but that was nullified by the performance 
> speedup of using the alloc fastpath a majority of the time for both 
> kmalloc-256 and kmalloc-2k when in the past it had only been able to serve 
> one or two allocs.  If no partial slab met the threshold, the slab_lock() 
> is held of the partial slab with the most free objects and returned 
> instead.
With the per-cpu partial list, I didn't see any workload which is still
suffering from the list lock, so I suppose both the trashing approach
and pick 25% used slab approach don't help. The per-cpu partial list
flushes the whole per-cpu partial list after s->cpu_partial objects are
freed, this is a little aggressive, because the per-cpu partial list
need refilled again soon after an allocation. I had experiment to have
separate per-cpu alloc/free partial list, which can avoid this. but
again, I didn't see any workload still suffering list lock issue even
with netperf which stress slub much. did you see such workload?

--
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/