linux-kernel - Re: hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e

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: <4BBCB868.2000705@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:52:56 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	alex.shi@...el.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>,
	"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e

Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> I wonder if this is not related to the kmem_cache_cpu structure 
>> straggling
>> cache line boundaries under some conditions. On 2.6.33 the kmem_cache_cpu
>> structure was larger and therefore tight packing resulted in different
>> alignment.
>>
>> Could you see how the following patch affects the results. It attempts to
>> increase the size of kmem_cache_cpu to a power of 2 bytes. There is also
>> the potential that other per cpu fetches to neighboring objects affect 
>> the
>> situation. We could cacheline align the whole thing.
>>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/slub_def.h |    5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/slub_def.h
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/slub_def.h    2010-04-07 
>> 11:33:50.000000000 -0500
>> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/slub_def.h    2010-04-07 
>> 11:35:18.000000000 -0500
>> @@ -38,6 +38,11 @@ struct kmem_cache_cpu {
>>      void **freelist;    /* Pointer to first free per cpu object */
>>      struct page *page;    /* The slab from which we are allocating */
>>      int node;        /* The node of the page (or -1 for debug) */
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
>> +    int dummy1;
>> +#endif
>> +    unsigned long dummy2;
>> +
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_STATS
>>      unsigned stat[NR_SLUB_STAT_ITEMS];
>>  #endif
> 
> Would __cacheline_aligned_in_smp do the trick here?

Oh, sorry, I think it's actually '____cacheline_aligned_in_smp' (with 
four underscores) for per-cpu data. Confusing...
--
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/