linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SLAB : use a multiply instead of a divide in obj_to

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]

Message-id: <45749465.6030601@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:34:29 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLAB : use a multiply instead of a divide in obj_to_index()

Thank you Andrew for your comments, here is a new version of the patch that 
should take them into account.

Maybe it should be split into two different patches ?

One introducing include/linux/reciprocal_div.h and lib/reciprocal_div.c, one 
using them in slab ?

[PATCH] SLAB : use a multiply instead of a divide in obj_to_index()

When some objects are allocated by one CPU but freed by another CPU we can
consume lot of cycles doing divides in obj_to_index().

(Typical load on a dual processor machine where network interrupts are handled
by one particular CPU (allocating skbufs), and the other CPU is running the
application (consuming and freeing skbufs))

Here on one production server (dual-core AMD Opteron 285), I noticed this
divide took 1.20 % of CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events in kernel. But Opteron are
quite modern cpus and the divide is much more expensive on oldest
architectures :

On a 200 MHz sparcv9 machine, the division takes 64 cycles instead of 1 cycle
for a multiply.

Doing some math, we can use a reciprocal multiplication instead of a divide.

If we want to compute V = (A / B)  (A and B being u32 quantities)
we can instead use :

V = ((u64)A * RECIPROCAL(B)) >> 32 ;

where RECIPROCAL(B) is precalculated to ((1LL << 32) + (B - 1)) / B

Note :

I wrote pure C code for clarity. gcc output for i386 is not optimal but
acceptable :

mull   0x14(%ebx)
mov    %edx,%eax // part of the >> 32
xor     %edx,%edx // useless
mov    %eax,(%esp) // could be avoided
mov    %edx,0x4(%esp) // useless
mov    (%esp),%ebx

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>

View attachment "reciprocal_division.patch" of type "text/plain" (3835 bytes)