linux-kernel - Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB

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:	Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:36:18 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> Can you do one run with oprofile, and see exactly where the cost is? It 
> should hopefully be pretty darn obvious, considering your timing.

So I checked hackbench on my machine with oprofile, and while I'm not 
seeing anything that says "ten times slower", I do see it hitting the slow 
path all the time, and __slab_alloc() is 15% of the profile.

With __slab_free() being another 8-9%.

I assume that with many CPU's, those get horrendously worse, with cache 
trashing.

The biggest cost of __slab_alloc() in my profile is the "slab_lock()", but 
that may not be the one that causes problems in a 64-cpu setup, so it 
would be good to have that verified.

Anyway, it's unclear whether the reason it goes into the slow-path because 
the freelist is just always empty, or whether it hits the

	... || !node_match(c, node)

case which can trigger on NUMA. That's another potential explanation of 
why you'd see such a *huge* slowdown (ie if the whole node-match thing 
doesn't work out, slub just never gets the fast-case at all). That said, 
the number of places that actually pass a specific node to slub is very 
limited, so I suspect it's not the node matching. But just disabling that 
test in slab_alloc() might be one thing to test.

[ The whole node match thing is likely totally bogus. I suspect we pay 
  *more* in trying to match nodes than we'd ever likely pay in just 
  returning the wrong node for an allocation, but that's neither here nor 
  there ]

But yeah, I'm not entirely sure SLUB is working out.

		Linus
--
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/