linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.38 sbrk regression

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1302703579.17536.1.camel@raz.scalemp.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:06:19 +0300
From:	raz ben yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	riel@...hat.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: 2.6.38 sbrk regression

ok, managed to build 38-rc3 ( keep forgetting make mrproper ).
problem is still there:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Test        Test        Elapsed  Iteration    Iteration
Operation
Number       Name      Time (sec)   Count   Rate (loops/sec)    Rate
(ops/sec)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     1 page_test            5.02        361   71.91235       122251.00
System Allocations & Pages/second
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


while in 2.6.37 rate is 171000.
ftrace is no good here as it changes the results to greatly.
any idea ?


On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 14:51 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> CC'ing Mel.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 02:03:58PM +0300, raz ben yehuda wrote:
> > Andrea Hello
> > 
> > I am running the AIM benchmark suite looking for regressions in 2.6.38.
> > The test page_test tests sbrk(). 2.6.38 is 13% less than 2.6.27 and 11%
> > less than 2.6.37.
> > The regression starts somewhere in the THP patch:  
> > SHA1 4e9f64c42d0ba5eb0c78569435ada4c224332ce4  to
> > SHA1 152c9ccb75548c027fa3103efa4fa4e19a345449 . 
> > 
> > I cannot git bisect it any more as the kernel won't compile.
> > Even if i disable THP in the kernel I still get a regression. 
> > I performed the benchmark on Xeon blade 3GHZ. But it also happens in
> > other types of machines.
> > 
> > 2.6.38
> > Apr 13 13:31:16 2011 AIM Independent Resource Benchmark - Suite IX 5120
> > page_test 30010 85.0716       144621.79 System Allocations &Pages/second
> > 
> > 2.6.37
> > Apr 13 13:44:39 2011 AIM Independent Resource Benchmark - Suite IX 5120
> > page_test 5020 100.797       171354.58 System Allocations & Pages/second
> > 
> > I am going to profile it hopefully I will have more information.
> 
> The compaction kswapd caused regressions in fs benchs like specsfs,
> it's fixed in 2.6.39-rc. Obviously it will go away if you set
> CONFIG_COMPACTION=n, but 2.6.39-rc should work best with COMPACTION=y
> too. Could you try latest 2.6.39 git?
> 
> Also please make sure CONFIG_SLUB=n and CONFIG_SLAB=y. We must fix
> SLUB so it stops allocating with GFP_KERNEL in the higher order alloc,
> I think it should only do a quick check of the buddy with
> GFP_ATOMIC. The pageblock types are the thing that prevents
> fragmentation, no need of special logic for that in slub. It's
> unlikely that for short lived allocations succeeding the high order
> allocation provides enough speedup to the code using the memory, in
> order to at least break even with the cost of compacting the memory to
> succeed the allocation.


--
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/