linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator

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: <20100525101924.GJ5087@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 25 May 2010 20:19:24 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:53:43PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> 
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> >> The main selling point for SLUB was NUMA. Has the situation changed?
> >
> > Well one problem with SLAB was really just those alien caches. AFAIK
> > they were added by Christoph Lameter (maybe wrong), and I didn't ever
> > actually see much justification for them in the changelog. noaliencache
> > can be and is used on bigger machines, and SLES and RHEL kernels are
> > using SLAB on production NUMA systems up to thousands of CPU Altixes,
> > and have been looking at working on SGI's UV, and hundreds of cores
> > POWER7 etc.
> 
> Yes, Christoph and some other people introduced alien caches IIRC for
> big iron SGI boxes. As for benchmarks, commit
> e498be7dafd72fd68848c1eef1575aa7c5d658df ("Numa-aware slab allocator
> V5") mentions AIM.

It's quite a change with a lot of things. But there are definitely
other ways we can improve this without having a huge dumb crossbar
for remote frees.

 
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> > I have not seen NUMA benchmarks showing SLUB is significantly better.
> > I haven't done much testing myself, mind you. But from indications, we
> > could probably quite easily drop the alien caches setup and do like a
> > simpler single remote freeing queue per CPU or something like that.
> 
> Commit 81819f0fc8285a2a5a921c019e3e3d7b6169d225 ("SLUB core") mentions
> kernbench improvements.

I haven't measured anything like that. Kernbench for me has never
had slab show anywhere near the profiles (it's always page fault,
teardown, page allocator paths).

Must have been a pretty specific configuration, but anyway I don't
know that it is realistic.

 
> Other than these two data points, I unfortunately don't have any as I
> wasn't involved with merging of either of the patches. If other NUMA
> people know better, please feel free to share the data.

A lot of people are finding SLAB is still required for performance
reasons. We did not want to change in SLES11 for example because
of performance concerns. Not sure about RHEL6?

 
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> > I think we should: modernise SLAB code, add missing debug features,
> > possibly turn off alien caches by default, chuck out SLUB, and then
> > require that future changes have some reasonable bar set to justify
> > them.
> >
> > I would not be at all against adding changes that transform SLAB to
> > SLUB or SLEB or SLQB. That's how it really should be done in the
> > first place.
> 
> Like I said, as a maintainer I'm happy to merge patches to modernize
> SLAB

I think that would be most productive at this point. I will volunteer
to do it.

As much as I would like to see SLQB be merged :) I think the best
option is to go with SLAB because it is very well tested and very
very well performing.

If Christoph or you or I or anyone have genuine improvements to make
to the core algorithms, then the best thing to do will just be do
make incremental changes to SLAB.


> but I still think you're underestimating the effort especially
> considering the fact that we can't afford many performance regressions
> there either. I guess trying to get rid of alien caches would be the
> first logical step there.

There are several aspects to this. I think the first one will be to
actually modernize the code style, simplify the bootstrap process and
static memory allocations (SLQB goes even further than SLUB in this
regard), and to pull in debug features from SLUB.

These steps should be made without any changes to core algorithms.
Alien caches can easily be disabled and at present they are really
only a problem for big Altixes where it is a known parameter to tune.

>From that point, I think we should concede that SLUB has not fulfilled
performance promises, and make SLAB the default.

--
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/