linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/35] Cleanup and optimise the page allocator V3

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: <20090316121122.GC6382@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:11:22 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35] Cleanup and optimise the page allocator V3

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:45:55PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 09:45:55AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Here is V3 of an attempt to cleanup and optimise the page allocator and should
> > be ready for general testing. The page allocator is now faster (16%
> > reduced time overall for kernbench on one machine) and it has a smaller cache
> > footprint (16.5% less L1 cache misses and 19.5% less L2 cache misses for
> > kernbench on one machine). The text footprint has unfortunately increased,
> > largely due to the introduction of a form of lazy buddy merging mechanism
> > that avoids cache misses by postponing buddy merging until a high-order
> > allocation needs it.
> 
> BTW. I would feel better about this if it gets merged in stages, with
> functional changes split out, and also code optimisations and omore
> obvious performace improvements split out and preferably merged first.
> 

The ordering of the patches was such that least-controversial stuff is
at the start of the patchset. The intention was to be able to select a
cut-off point and say "that's enough for now"

> At a very quick glance, the first 25 or so patches should go in first,
> and that gives a much better base to compare subsequent functional
> changes with.

That's reasonable. I've requeued tests for the patchset up to 25 to see what
that looks like. There is also a part of a later patch that reduces how much
time is spent with interrupts disabled. I should split that out and move it
back to within the cut-off point as something that is "obviously good".

> Patch 18 for example is really significant, and should
> almost be 2.6.29/-stable material IMO.
> 

My impression was that -stable was only for functional regressions where
as this is really a performance thing.

-- 
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/