linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/16] slab: remove cachep in struct slab

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: <CAAmzW4N1GXbr18Ws9QDKg7ChN5RVcOW9eEv2RxWhaEoHtw=ctw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Aug 2013 01:12:11 +0900
From:	JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/16] slab: remove cachep in struct slab_rcu

2013/8/24 Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. This patch only affect to the rcu case, because it
>> change the code
>> which is in kmem_rcu_free(). It doesn't touch anything in standard case.
>
> In general this patchset moves struct slab to overlay struct page. The
> design of SLAB was (at least at some point in the past) to avoid struct
> page references. The freelist was kept close to struct slab so that the
> contents are in the same cache line. Moving fields to struct page will add
> another cacheline to be referenced.

I don't think so.
We should touch the struct page in order to get the struct slab, so there is
no additional cacheline reference.

And if the size of the (slab + freelist) decreases due to this patchset,
there is more chance to be on-slab which means that the freelist is in pages
of a slab itself. I think that it also help cache usage.

> The freelist (bufctl_t) was dimensioned in such a way as to be small
> and close cache wise to struct slab.

I think that my patchset don't harm anything related to this.
As I said, we should access the struct page before getting the struct slab,
so the fact that freelist is far from the struct slab doesn't mean additional
cache overhead.

* Before patchset
struct page -> struct slab (far from struct page)
   -> the freelist (near from struct slab)

* After patchset
struct page (overload by struct slab) -> the freelist (far from struct page)

Somewhow bufctl_t grew to
> unsigned int and therefore the table became a bit large. Fundamentally
> these are indexes into the objects in page. They really could be sized
> again to just be single bytes as also explained in the comments in slab.c:
> /*
>  * kmem_bufctl_t:
>  *
>  * Bufctl's are used for linking objs within a slab
>  * linked offsets.
>  *
>  * This implementation relies on "struct page" for locating the cache &
>  * slab an object belongs to.
>  * This allows the bufctl structure to be small (one int), but limits
>  * the number of objects a slab (not a cache) can contain when off-slab
>  * bufctls are used. The limit is the size of the largest general cache
>  * that does not use off-slab slabs.
>  * For 32bit archs with 4 kB pages, is this 56.
>  * This is not serious, as it is only for large objects, when it is unwise
>  * to have too many per slab.
>  * Note: This limit can be raised by introducing a general cache whose size
>  * is less than 512 (PAGE_SIZE<<3), but greater than 256.
>  */
>
> For 56 objects the bufctl_t could really be reduced to an 8 bit integer
> which would shrink the size of the table significantly and improve speed
> by reducing cache footprint.
>

Yes, that's very good. However this is not related to this patchset.
It can be implemented independently :)

Please let me know what I am missing.
Thanks.
--
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/