linux-kernel - Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB

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: <p73bqbd6cip.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date:	05 Oct 2007 13:12:30 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, cebbert@...hat.com,
	willy@...ux.intel.com, clameter@....com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
	hch@....de, mel@...net.ie, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB

Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> writes:
> 
> Writing a small test module to exercise slub/slab in various ways
> (allocating from all cpus freeing from one, as described) should not be
> too hard. Perhaps that would be enough to find this performance
> discrepancy between slab and slub?

You could simulate that by just sending packets using unix sockets 
between threads bound to different CPUs. Sending a packet allocates; receiving 
deallocates.

But it's not clear that will really simulate the cache bounce environment
of the database test. I don't think all passing of data between CPUs 
using slub objects is slow.

-Andi
-
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/