linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] slub: increasing order reduces memory usage of some key caches

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1216216730.3122.60.camel@castor.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:58:50 +0100
From:	Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	penberg@...helsinki.fi, mpm@...enic.com,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] slub: increasing order reduces memory usage of
	some key caches


On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 08:21 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Richard Kennedy wrote:
> 
> 
> > on my amd64 3 gb ram desktop typical numbers :-
> > 
> > [kernel,objects,pages/slab,slabs,total pages,diff]
> > radix_tree_node
> > 2.6.26 33922,2,2423 	4846
> > +patch 33541,4,1165	4660,-186
> > dentry
> > 2.6.26	82136,1,4323	4323
> > +patch	79482,2,2038	4076,-247
> > the extra dentries would use 136 pages but that still leaves a saving of
> > 111 pages.
> 
> Good numbers....
> 
> > Can anyone suggest any other tests that would be useful to run?
> > & Is there any way to measure what impact this is having on
> > fragmentation?
> 
> Mel would be able to tell you that but I think we better figure out what went wrong first.
> 
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 315c392..c365b04 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2301,6 +2301,14 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s, int forced_order)
> >  	if (order < 0)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > +	if (order < slub_max_order ) {
> > +		unsigned long waste = (PAGE_SIZE << order) % size;
> > +		if ( waste *2 >= size ) {
> > +			order++;
> > +			printk ( KERN_INFO "SLUB: increasing order %s->[%d] [%ld]\n",s->name,order,size);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	s->allocflags = 0;
> >  	if (order)
> >  		s->allocflags |= __GFP_COMP;
> 
> The order and waste calculation occurs in slab_order(). If modifications are needed then they need to occur in that function.

Definitely -- this was only intended demonstration code :)  

> Looks like the existing code is not doing the best thing for dentries on your box?
> 
> On my 64 bit box dentries are 208 bytes long, 39 objects per page and 84 bytes
> are lost per order 1 page. So this would not trigger your patch at all. There must be something special to your configuration.
> 
It's a slightly modified fedora config -- I'm not aware of anything
particularly special. I'm setting the processor type to amd
athlon64/opteron (CONFIG_MK8) 

> 
> /linux-2.6$ slabinfo dentry
> 
> Slabcache: dentry                Aliases:  0 Order :  1 Objects: 554209
> ** Reclaim accounting active
> 
> Sizes (bytes)     Slabs              Debug                Memory
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Object :     208  Total  :   14215   Sanity Checks : Off  Total: 116449280
> SlabObj:     208  Full   :   14179   Redzoning     : Off  Used : 115275472
> SlabSiz:    8192  Partial:      32   Poisoning     : Off  Loss : 1173808
> Loss   :       0  CpuSlab:       4   Tracking      : Off  Lalig:       0
> Align  :       8  Objects:      39   Tracing       : Off  Lpadd: 1137200
> 
> 
> Can you post the slabinfo information about the caches that you are concerned with? Please a before and after state.
> 
I don't have SYSFS slab info turned on right now, But I'll rebuild and get those for you.

but I get this from /proc/slabinfo

before
dentry             82136  82137    208   19    1 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata   4323   4323      0
after
dentry             79482  79482    208   39    2 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata   2038   2038      0

Richard

--
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/