linux-kernel - Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)

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: <20090203122644.GN9840@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:26:44 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:07:07PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 23:01:39 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:50:54PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 03 February 2009 22:28:52 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 09:36:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > > I'd be interested to see how slub performs if booted with
> > > > > slub_min_objects=1 (which should give similar order pages to SLAB and
> > > > > SLQB).
> > > >
> > > > Just to clarify on this last point, do you mean slub_max_order=0 to
> > > > force order-0 allocations in SLUB?
> > >
> > > Hmm... I think slub_min_objects=1 should also do basically the same.
> > > Actually slub_min_object=1 and slub_max_order=1 should get closest I
> > > think.
> >
> > I'm going with slub_min_objects=1 and slub_max_order=0. A quick glance
> > of the source shows the calculation as
> >
> >         for (order = max(min_order,
> >                                 fls(min_objects * size - 1) - PAGE_SHIFT);
> >                         order <= max_order; order++) {
> >
> > so the max_order is inclusive not exclusive. This will force the order-0
> > allocations I think you are looking for.
> 
> Well, but in the case of really bad internal fragmentation in the page,
> SLAB will do order-1 allocations even if it doesn't strictly need to.
> Probably this isn't a huge deal, but I think if we do slub_min_objects=1,
> then SLUB won't care about number of objects per page, and slub_max_order=1
> will mean it stops caring about fragmentation after order-1. I think. Which
> would be pretty close to SLAB (depending on exactly how much fragmentation
> it cares about).
> 

Ok, very good point and I agree with your assessment. Tests are restarted with
slub_min_objects=1 slab_max_order=1. The dmesg line related to SLUB looks like

SLUB: Genslabs=13, HWalign=64, Order=0-1, MinObjects=1, CPUs=4, Nodes=1

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/