linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and 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]

Date:   Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:33:51 +0800
From:   Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.de>
Cc:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        penberg@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and
 slab_free



On 6/17/22 10:19 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022, Rongwei Wang wrote:
> 
>> Christoph, I refer [1] to test some data below. The slub_test case is same to
>> your provided. And here you the result of its test (the baseline is the data
>> of upstream kernel, and fix is results of patched kernel).
> 
> Ah good.
>> Single thread testing
>>
>> 1. Kmalloc: Repeatedly allocate then free test
>>
>>                     before (baseline)        fix
>>                     kmalloc      kfree       kmalloc      kfree
>> 10000 times 8      7 cycles     8 cycles    5 cycles     7 cycles
>> 10000 times 16     4 cycles     8 cycles    3 cycles     6 cycles
>> 10000 times 32     4 cycles     8 cycles    3 cycles     6 cycles
> 
> Well the cycle reduction is strange. Tests are not done in the same
> environment? Maybe good to not use NUMA or bind to the same cpu
It's the same environment. I can sure. And there are four nodes (32G 
per-node and 8 cores per-node) in my test environment. whether I need to 
test in one node? If right, I can try.
> 
>> 10000 times 64     3 cycles     8 cycles    3 cycles     6 cycles
>> 10000 times 128    3 cycles     8 cycles    3 cycles     6 cycles
>> 10000 times 256    12 cycles    8 cycles    11 cycles    7 cycles
>> 10000 times 512    27 cycles    10 cycles   23 cycles    11 cycles
>> 10000 times 1024   18 cycles    9 cycles    20 cycles    10 cycles
>> 10000 times 2048   54 cycles    12 cycles   54 cycles    12 cycles
>> 10000 times 4096   105 cycles   20 cycles   105 cycles   25 cycles
>> 10000 times 8192   210 cycles   35 cycles   212 cycles   39 cycles
>> 10000 times 16384  133 cycles   45 cycles   119 cycles   46 cycles
> 
> 
> Seems to be different environments.
> 
>> According to the above data, It seems that no significant performance
>> degradation in patched kernel. Plus, in concurrent allocs test, likes Kmalloc
>> N*alloc N*free(1024), the data of 'fix' column is better than baseline (it
>> looks less is better, if I am wrong, please let me know). And if you have
>> other suggestions, I can try to test more data.
> 
> Well can you explain the cycle reduction?
Maybe because of four nodes in my system or only 8 cores (very small) in 
each node? Thanks, you remind me that I need to increase core number of 
each node or change node number to compere the results.

Thanks!