linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1

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:	Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hughd@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> The per cpu partial lists only add the need for more memory if other
> processors have to allocate new pages because they do not have enough
> partial slab pages to satisfy their needs. That can be tuned by a cap on
> objects.
> 

The netperf benchmark isn't representative of a heavy slab consuming 
workload, I routinely run jobs on these machines that use 20 times the 
amount of slab.  From what I saw in the earlier posting of the per-cpu 
partial list patch, the min_partial value is set to half of what it was 
previously as a per-node partial list.  Since these are 16-core, 4 node 
systems, that would mean that after a kmem_cache_shrink() on a cache that 
leaves empty slab on the partial lists that we've doubled the memory for 
slub's partial lists systemwide.
--
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/