linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] fs: Scalability of sockets/pipes allocation/deallocation on SMP

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811261935330.31159@quilx.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:37:17 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] fs: Scalability of sockets/pipes allocation/deallocation
 on SMP

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> The last point is about SLUB being hit hard, unless we
> use slub_min_order=3 at boot, or we use Christoph Lameter
> patch (struct file RCU optimizations)
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/418615
>
> If we boot machine with slub_min_order=3, SLUB overhead disappears.


I'd rather not be that drastic. Did you try increasing slub_min_objects
instead? Try 40-100. If we find the right number then we should update
the tuning to make sure that it pickes the right slab page sizes.
--
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/