linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page

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: <20080901141750.37101182.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:17:50 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hugh@...itas.com,
	menage@...gle.com, xemul@...nvz.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	"nickpiggin@...oo.com.au" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:03:51 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > That depends, if we can get the lockless page cgroup done quickly, I don't mind
> > waiting, but if it is going to take longer, I would rather push these changes
> > in. 
> The development of lockless-page_cgroup is not stalled. I'm just waiting for
> my 8cpu box comes back from maintainance...
> If you want to see, I'll post v3 with brief result on small (2cpu) box.
> 
This is current status (result of unixbench.)
result of 2core/1socket x86-64 system.

==
[disabled]
Execl Throughput                           3103.3 lps   (29.7 secs, 3 samples)
C Compiler Throughput                      1052.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               5915.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)               1142.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               586.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         131463.3 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

[rc4mm1]
Execl Throughput                           3004.4 lps   (29.6 secs, 3 samples)
C Compiler Throughput                      1017.9 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               5726.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)               1124.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               576.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         125446.5 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

[lockless]
Execl Throughput                           3041.0 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
C Compiler Throughput                      1025.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               5713.6 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)               1113.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               571.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         125417.9 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
==

>From this, single-thread results are good. multi-process results are not good ;)
So, I think the number of atomic ops are reduced but I have should-be-fixed
contention or cache-bouncing problem yet. I'd like to fix this and check on 8 core
system when it is back.
Recently, I wonder within-3%-overhead is realistic goal.

Thanks,
-Kame




--
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/