linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/22] Per-cpu page allocator replacement prototype

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:	Thu, 09 May 2013 08:41:49 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/22] Per-cpu page allocator replacement prototype

On 05/08/2013 09:02 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> So preliminary testing indicates the results are mixed bag. As long as
> locks are not contended, it performs fine but parallel fault testing
> hits into spinlock contention on the magazine locks. A greater problem
> is that because CPUs share magazines it means that the struct pages are
> frequently dirtied cache lines. If CPU A frees a page to a magazine and
> CPU B immediately allocates it then the cache line for the page and the
> magazine bounces and this costs. It's on the TODO list to research if the
> available literature has anything useful to say that does not depend on
> per-cpu lists and the associated problems with them.

If we don't want to bounce 'struct page' cache lines around, then we
_need_ to make sure that things that don't share caches don't use the
same magazine.  I'm not sure there's any other way.  But, that doesn't
mean we have to _statically_ assign cores/thread to particular magazines.

Say we had a percpu hint which points us to the last magazine we used.
We always go to it first, and fall back to round-robin if our preferred
one is contended.  That way, if we have a mixture tasks doing heavy and
light allocations, the heavy allocators will tend to "own" a magazine,
and the lighter ones would gravitate to sharing one.

It might be taking things too far, but we could even raise the number of
magazines only when we actually *see* contention on the existing set.

>  24 files changed, 571 insertions(+), 788 deletions(-)

oooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh.

The only question is how much we'll have to bloat it as we try to
optimize things. :)

BTW, I really like the 'magazine' name.  It's not frequently used in
this kind of context and it conjures up a nice mental image whether it
be of stacks of periodicals or firearm ammunition clips.
--
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/