linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] Optimize zone allocator synchronization

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:	Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:08:07 -0500
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	Don Porter <porterde@...utexas.edu>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Optimize zone allocator synchronization

Don Porter wrote:
> From: Donald E. Porter <porterde@...utexas.edu>
> 
> In the bulk page allocation/free routines in mm/page_alloc.c, the zone
> lock is held across all iterations.  For certain parallel workloads, I
> have found that releasing and reacquiring the lock for each iteration
> yields better performance, especially at higher CPU counts.  For
> instance, kernel compilation is sped up by 5% on an 8 CPU test
> machine.  In most cases, there is no significant effect on performance
> (although the effect tends to be slightly positive).  This seems quite
> reasonable for the very small scope of the change.
> 
> My intuition is that this patch prevents smaller requests from waiting
> on larger ones.  While grabbing and releasing the lock within the loop
> adds a few instructions, it can lower the latency for a particular
> thread's allocation which is often on the thread's critical path.
> Lowering the average latency for allocation can increase system throughput.
> 
> More detailed information, including data from the tests I ran to
> validate this change are available at
> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~porterde/kernel-patch.html .
> 
> Thanks in advance for your consideration and feedback.

That's an interesting insight.  My intuition is that Nick Piggin's 
recently-posted ticket spinlocks patches[1] will reduce the need for this patch, 
though it may be useful to have both.  Can you benchmark again with only ticket 
spinlocks, and with ticket spinlocks + this patch?  You'll probably want to use 
2.6.24-rc1 as your baseline, due to the x86 architecture merge.

	-- Chris

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/1/123
-
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/