linux-kernel - Re: [slub p4 0/7] slub: per cpu partial lists V4

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, 15 Aug 2011 11:44:17 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	tj@...nel.org, Metathronius Galabant <m.galabant@...glemail.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Adrian Drzewiecki <z@...e.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [slub p4 0/7] slub: per cpu partial lists V4

On 8/13/11 9:28 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
>> The following patchset introduces per cpu partial lists which allow
>> a performance increase of around ~10-20% with hackbench on my Sandybridge
>> processor.
>>
>> These lists help to avoid per node locking overhead. Allocator latency
>> could be further reduced by making these operations work without
>> disabling interrupts (like the fastpath and the free slowpath) but that
>> is another project.
>>
>> It is interesting to note that BSD has gone to a scheme with partial
>> pages only per cpu (source: Adrian). Transfer of cpu ownerships is
>> done using IPIs. Probably too much overhead for our taste. The approach
>> here keeps the per node partial lists essentially meaning the "pages"
>> in there have no cpu owner.
>>
>
> I'm currently 35,000 feet above Chicago going about 611 mph, so what
> better time to benchmark this patchset on my netperf testing rack!
>
> 	threads		before		after
> 	 16		78031		74714  (-4.3%)
> 	 32		118269		115810 (-2.1%)
> 	 48		150787		150165 (-0.4%)
> 	 64		189932		187766 (-1.1%)
> 	 80		221189		223682 (+1.1%)
> 	 96		239807		246222 (+2.7%)
> 	112		262135		271329 (+3.5%)
> 	128		273612		286782 (+4.8%)
> 	144		280009		293943 (+5.0%)
> 	160		285972		299798 (+4.8%)
>
> I'll review the patchset in detail, especially the cleanups and
> optimizations, when my wifi isn't so sketchy.

Andi, it'd be interesting to know your results for v4 of this patchset. 
I'm hoping to get the patches reviewed and merged to linux-next this week.

			Pekka
--
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/