linux-kernel - [RFC] [PATCH 0/9] remove page_cgroup pointer (with some enhancements)

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080911200855.94d33d3b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:08:55 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	"xemul@...nvz.org" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com
Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 0/9]  remove page_cgroup pointer (with some
 enhancements)

Hi, Balbir.

I wrote remove-page-cgroup-pointer patch on top of my small patches.
This series includes enhancements patches for memory resource controller
on my queue. 

I think I can (or have to) do more twaeks but post this while it's hot.
Passed some tests.

remove-page-cgroup-pointer patch is [8/9] and [9/9].
How about this ?

Peformance comparison is below.
==
rc5-mm1
==
Execl Throughput                           3006.5 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
C Compiler Throughput                      1006.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4863.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                943.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               482.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124804.9 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

After this series
==
Execl Throughput                           3003.3 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
C Compiler Throughput                      1008.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4580.6 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                913.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               569.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124918.7 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

Hmm..no loss ? But maybe I should find what I can do to improve this.

Brief patch description is below.

1. patches/nolimit_root.patch
   This patch makes 'root' cgroup's limit to be fixed to unlimited.

2. patches/atomic_flags.patch
   This patch makes page_cgroup->flags to be unsigned long and add atomic ops.

3. patches/account_move.patch
   This patch implements move_account() function for recharging account 
   from a memory resource controller to another.

4. patches/new_force_empty.patch
   This patch makes force_empty() to use move_account() rather than just drop
   accounts. (As fist step, account is moved to 'root'. We can change this later.)

5. patches/make_mapping_null.patch
   Clean up. This guarantees page->mapping to be NULL before uncharge() against 
   page cache is called.

6. patches/stat.patch
   Optimize page_cgroup_change_statistics().

7. patches/charge-will-success.patch
   Add "likely" to charge function.

8. patches/page_cgroup.patch
   remove page_cgroup pointer from struct page and add lookup-system for
   page_cgroup from pfn,

9. patches/boost_page_cgroup_lookupg.patch
   user per-cpu cache for fast access to page_cgroup.

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/