linux-kernel - Re: vmalloc performance

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]

Date:	Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:58:49 +0100
From:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: vmalloc performance

Hi,

On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 00:14 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 15:10 +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 01:51 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Thanks for the explanation. It seems to be real issue. 
> > > 
> > > I tested to see effect with flush during rb tree search.
> > > 
> > > Before I applied your patch, the time is 50300661 us. 
> > > After your patch, 11569357 us. 
> > > After my debug patch, 6104875 us.
> > > 
> > > I tested it as changing threshold value.
> > > 
> > > threshold	time
> > > 1000		13892809
> > > 500		9062110
> > > 200		6714172
> > > 100		6104875
> > > 50		6758316
> > > 
> > My results show:
> > 
> > threshold        time
> > 100000           139309948
> > 1000             13555878
> > 500              10069801
> > 200              7813667
> > 100              18523172
> > 50               18546256
> > 
> > > And perf shows smp_call_function is very low percentage.
> > > 
> > > In my cases, 100 is best. 
> > > 
> > Looks like 200 for me.
> > 
> > I think you meant to use the non _minmax version of proc_dointvec too?
> 
> Yes. My fault :)
> 
> > Although it doesn't make any difference for this basic test.
> > 
> > The original reporter also has 8 cpu cores I've discovered. In his case
> > divided by 4 cpus where as mine are divided by 2 cpus, but I think that
> > makes no real difference in this case.
> > 
> > I'll try and get some further test results ready shortly. Many thanks
> > for all your efforts in tracking this down,
> > 
> > Steve.
> 
> I voted "free area cache".
My results with this patch are:

vmalloc took 5419238 us
vmalloc took 5432874 us
vmalloc took 5425568 us
vmalloc took 5423867 us

So thats about a third of the time it took with my original patch, so
very much going in the right direction :-)

I did get a compile warning:
  CC      mm/vmalloc.o
mm/vmalloc.c: In function ‘__free_vmap_area’:
mm/vmalloc.c:454: warning: unused variable ‘prev’

....harmless, but it should be fixed before the final version,

Steve.


--
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/