linux-kernel - Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well

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: <1218636982.7813.332.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:16:22 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, andi@...stfloor.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished
	making slub perform as well

On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 23:14 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> :t-0000128               28739     128     1.3G  20984/20984/8  512 0  99   0 *
> >
> > Argh. Most slabs contain a single object. Probably due to the conflict resolution.
> 
> agreed with the issue exist in lock contention code.
> 
> 
> > The obvious fix is to avoid allocating another slab on conflict but how will
> > this impact performance?
> >
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c    2008-08-13 08:06:00.000000000 -0500
> > +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c 2008-08-13 08:07:59.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -1253,13 +1253,11 @@
> >  static inline int lock_and_freeze_slab(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> >                                                        struct page *page)
> >  {
> > -       if (slab_trylock(page)) {
> > -               list_del(&page->lru);
> > -               n->nr_partial--;
> > -               __SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> > -               return 1;
> > -       }
> > -       return 0;
> > +       slab_lock(page);
> > +       list_del(&page->lru);
> > +       n->nr_partial--;
> > +       __SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> > +       return 1;
> >  }
> 
> I don't mesure it yet. I don't like this patch.
> maybe, it decrease other typical benchmark.
> 
> So, I think better way is
> 
> 1. slab_trylock(), if success goto 10.
> 2. check fragmentation ratio, if low goto 10
> 3. slab_lock()
> 10. return func
> 
> I think this way doesn't cause performance regression.
> because high fragmentation cause defrag and compaction lately.
> So, prevent fragmentation often increase performance.
> 
> Thought?

I guess that would work. But how exactly would you quantify
"fragmentation ratio?"

--
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/