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  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:   Sun, 17 Oct 2021 13:57:08 +0000
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Subject: Do we really need SLOB nowdays?

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 01:36:18PM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 04:28:52AM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > I've been reading SLUB/SLOB code for a while. SLUB recently became
> > real time compatible by reducing its locking area.
> > 
> > for now, SLUB is the only slab allocator for PREEMPT_RT because
> > it works better than SLAB on RT and SLOB uses non-deterministic method,
> > sequential fit.
> > 
> > But memory usage of SLUB is too high for systems with low memory.
> > So In my local repository I made SLOB to use segregated free list
> > method, which is more more deterministic, to provide bounded latency.
> > 
> > This can be done by managing list of partial pages globally
> > for every power of two sizes (8, 16, 32, ..., PAGE_SIZE) per NUMA nodes.
> > minimal allocation size is size of pointers to keep pointer of next free object
> > like SLUB.
> > 
> > By making objects in same page to have same size, there's no
> > need to iterate free blocks in a page. (Also iterating pages isn't needed)
> > 
> > Some cleanups and more tests (especially with NUMA/RT configs) needed,
> > but want to hear your opinion about the idea. Did not test on RT yet.
> > 
> > Below is result of benchmarks and memory usage. (on !RT)
> > with 13% increase in memory usage, it's nine times faster and
> > bounded fragmentation, and importantly provides predictable execution time.
> > 
> 
> Hello linux-mm, I improved it and it uses lower memory
> and 9x~13x faster than original SLOB. it shows much less fragmentation
> after hackbench.
> 
> Rather than managing global freelist that has power of 2 sizes,
> I made a kmem_cache to manage its own freelist (for each NUMA nodes) and
> Added support for slab merging. So It quite looks like a lightweight SLUB now.
> 
> I'll send rfc patch after some testing and code cleaning.
> 
> I think it is more RT-friendly becuase it's uses more deterministic
> algorithm (But lock is still shared among cpus). Any opinions for RT?

Hi there. after some thinking, I got a new question:
If a lightweight SLUB is better than SLOB,
Do we really need SLOB nowdays?

And one more question:
    in Christoph's presentation [1], it says SLOB uses
    300 KB of memory. but on my system it uses almost 8000 KB.
    what's is differences?

[1] https://events.static.linuxfound.org/sites/events/files/slides/slaballocators.pdf

SLUB without cpu partials:

memory usage:
   after boot:
       Slab:               8672 kB
   after hackbench:
       Slab:               9540 kB

Performance counter stats for 'hackbench -g 4 -l 10000':
          48463.05 msec cpu-clock                 #    1.995 CPUs utilized
            944154      context-switches          #   19.482 K/sec
              8161      cpu-migrations            #  168.396 /sec
              4117      page-faults               #   84.951 /sec
       52570808507      cycles                    #    1.085 GHz
       65083778667      instructions              #    1.24  insn per cycle
         234990576      branch-misses
       23628671709      cache-references          #  487.561 M/sec
         739599271      cache-misses              #    3.130 % of all cache refs

      24.287392120 seconds time elapsed

       1.509198000 seconds user
      46.942748000 seconds sys

> current SLOB:
>     memory usage:
>         after boot:
>             Slab:               7908 kB
>         after hackbench:
>             Slab:               8544 kB
>   
>     Time: 189.947
>     Performance counter stats for 'hackbench -g 4 -l 10000':
>          379413.20 msec cpu-clock                 #    1.997 CPUs utilized          
>            8818226      context-switches          #   23.242 K/sec                  
>             375186      cpu-migrations            #  988.859 /sec                   
>               3954      page-faults               #   10.421 /sec                   
>       269923095290      cycles                    #    0.711 GHz                    
>       212341582012      instructions              #    0.79  insn per cycle         
>         2361087153      branch-misses                                               
>        58222839688      cache-references          #  153.455 M/sec                  
>         6786521959      cache-misses              #   11.656 % of all cache refs    
> 
>      190.002062273 seconds time elapsed
> 
>        3.486150000 seconds user
>      375.599495000 seconds sys
> 
> SLOB with segregated list + slab merging:
>     memory usage:
>        after boot:
>            Slab:               7560 kB
>         after hackbench:
>            Slab:               7836 kB        
> 
> hackbench:
>     Time: 20.780
>     Performance counter stats for 'hackbench -g 4 -l 10000':
>           41509.79 msec cpu-clock                 #    1.996 CPUs utilized          
>             630032      context-switches          #   15.178 K/sec                  
>               8287      cpu-migrations            #  199.640 /sec                   
>               4036      page-faults               #   97.230 /sec                   
>        57477161020      cycles                    #    1.385 GHz                    
>        62775453932      instructions              #    1.09  insn per cycle         
>          164902523      branch-misses                                               
>        22559952993      cache-references          #  543.485 M/sec                  
>          832404011      cache-misses              #    3.690 % of all cache refs    
> 
>       20.791893590 seconds time elapsed
> 
>        1.423282000 seconds user
>       40.072449000 seconds sys
> -
> Thanks,
> Hyeonggon

Powered by blists - more mailing lists