linux-kernel - Re: [patch 21/21] slab defrag: Obsolete 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: <1210798978.4093.82.camel@calx>
Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 16:02:58 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 21/21] slab defrag: Obsolete SLAB

On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 13:33 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
> > > allocator?
> > 
> > No, slow path here means we're already under memory pressure, so we
> > don't care if something takes longer if it saves memory.
> 
> So expire the queues under memory pressure only? Trigger queue cleanup 
> from reclaim?

This wouldn't be my first thought. The batch size could be potentially
huge and we'd have to worry about latency issues.

But here are some other thoughts:

First, we should obviously always expire all queues when we hit low
water marks as it'll be cheaper/faster than other forms of reclaim.

Second, if our queues were per-slab (this might be hard, I realize), we
can sweep the queue at alloc time.

We can also sweep before falling back to the page allocator. That should
guarantee that delayed frees don't negatively impact fragmentation.

And lastly, we can always have a periodic thread/timer/workqueue
operation.

So far this is a bunch of hand-waving but I think this ends up basically
being an anti-magazine. A magazine puts a per-cpu queue on the alloc
side which costs on both the alloc and free side, regardless of whether
the workload demands it. This puts a per-cpu queue on the free side that
we can bypass in the cache-friendly case. I think that's a step in the
right direction.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
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/