| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <oj5ossmsvybogs5fr2fjdmms66usoh7pdpkuxwlkagxniscrrb@vghtzkxauvix>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:17:32 +0800
From: Hao Li <hao.li@...ux.dev>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, bpf@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/22] slab: replace cpu (partial) slabs with sheaves
On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 12:50:25PM +0800, Hao Li wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 04:28:01PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> > So previously those would become kind of double
> > cached by both sheaves and cpu (partial) slabs (and thus hopefully benefited
> > more than they should) since sheaves introduction in 6.18, and now they are
> > not double cached anymore?
> >
>
> I've conducted new tests, and here are the details of three scenarios:
>
> 1. Checked out commit 9d4e6ab865c4, which represents the state before the
> introduction of the sheaves mechanism.
> 2. Tested with 6.19-rc5, which includes sheaves but does not yet apply the
> "sheaves for all" patchset.
> 3. Applied the "sheaves for all" patchset and also included the "avoid
> list_lock contention" patch.
Here is my testing environment information and the raw test data.
Command:
cd will-it-scale/
python3 ./runtest.py mmap2 25 process 0 0 64 128 192
Env:
CPU(s): 192
Thread(s) per core: 1
Core(s) per socket: 96
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s): 4
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-47
NUMA node1 CPU(s): 48-95
NUMA node2 CPU(s): 96-143
NUMA node3 CPU(s): 144-191
Memory: 1.5T
Raw data:
1. Checked out commit 9d4e6ab865c4, which represents the state before the
introduction of the sheaves mechanism.
{
"time.elapsed_time": 93.88,
"time.elapsed_time.max": 93.88,
"time.file_system_inputs": 2640,
"time.file_system_outputs": 128,
"time.involuntary_context_switches": 417738,
"time.major_page_faults": 54,
"time.maximum_resident_set_size": 90012,
"time.minor_page_faults": 80569,
"time.page_size": 4096,
"time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got": 5707,
"time.system_time": 5272.97,
"time.user_time": 85.59,
"time.voluntary_context_switches": 2436,
"will-it-scale.128.processes": 28445014,
"will-it-scale.128.processes_idle": 33.89,
"will-it-scale.192.processes": 39899678,
"will-it-scale.192.processes_idle": 1.29,
"will-it-scale.64.processes": 15645502,
"will-it-scale.64.processes_idle": 66.75,
"will-it-scale.per_process_ops": 224832,
"will-it-scale.time.elapsed_time": 93.88,
"will-it-scale.time.elapsed_time.max": 93.88,
"will-it-scale.time.file_system_inputs": 2640,
"will-it-scale.time.file_system_outputs": 128,
"will-it-scale.time.involuntary_context_switches": 417738,
"will-it-scale.time.major_page_faults": 54,
"will-it-scale.time.maximum_resident_set_size": 90012,
"will-it-scale.time.minor_page_faults": 80569,
"will-it-scale.time.page_size": 4096,
"will-it-scale.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got": 5707,
"will-it-scale.time.system_time": 5272.97,
"will-it-scale.time.user_time": 85.59,
"will-it-scale.time.voluntary_context_switches": 2436,
"will-it-scale.workload": 83990194
}
2. Tested with 6.19-rc5, which includes sheaves but does not yet apply the
"sheaves for all" patchset.
{
"time.elapsed_time": 93.86000000000001,
"time.elapsed_time.max": 93.86000000000001,
"time.file_system_inputs": 1952,
"time.file_system_outputs": 160,
"time.involuntary_context_switches": 766225,
"time.major_page_faults": 50.666666666666664,
"time.maximum_resident_set_size": 90012,
"time.minor_page_faults": 80635,
"time.page_size": 4096,
"time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got": 5738,
"time.system_time": 5251.88,
"time.user_time": 134.57666666666665,
"time.voluntary_context_switches": 2539,
"will-it-scale.128.processes": 38223543.333333336,
"will-it-scale.128.processes_idle": 33.833333333333336,
"will-it-scale.192.processes": 54039039,
"will-it-scale.192.processes_idle": 1.26,
"will-it-scale.64.processes": 20579207.666666668,
"will-it-scale.64.processes_idle": 66.74333333333334,
"will-it-scale.per_process_ops": 300541,
"will-it-scale.time.elapsed_time": 93.86000000000001,
"will-it-scale.time.elapsed_time.max": 93.86000000000001,
"will-it-scale.time.file_system_inputs": 1952,
"will-it-scale.time.file_system_outputs": 160,
"will-it-scale.time.involuntary_context_switches": 766225,
"will-it-scale.time.major_page_faults": 50.666666666666664,
"will-it-scale.time.maximum_resident_set_size": 90012,
"will-it-scale.time.minor_page_faults": 80635,
"will-it-scale.time.page_size": 4096,
"will-it-scale.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got": 5738,
"will-it-scale.time.system_time": 5251.88,
"will-it-scale.time.user_time": 134.57666666666665,
"will-it-scale.time.voluntary_context_switches": 2539,
"will-it-scale.workload": 112841790
}
3. Applied the "sheaves for all" patchset and also included the "avoid
list_lock contention" patch.
{
"time.elapsed_time": 93.86666666666667,
"time.elapsed_time.max": 93.86666666666667,
"time.file_system_inputs": 1800,
"time.file_system_outputs": 149.33333333333334,
"time.involuntary_context_switches": 421120,
"time.major_page_faults": 37,
"time.maximum_resident_set_size": 90016,
"time.minor_page_faults": 80645,
"time.page_size": 4096,
"time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got": 5714.666666666667,
"time.system_time": 5256.176666666667,
"time.user_time": 108.88333333333333,
"time.voluntary_context_switches": 2513,
"will-it-scale.128.processes": 28067051.333333332,
"will-it-scale.128.processes_idle": 33.82,
"will-it-scale.192.processes": 38232965.666666664,
"will-it-scale.192.processes_idle": 1.2733333333333334,
"will-it-scale.64.processes": 15464041.333333334,
"will-it-scale.64.processes_idle": 66.76333333333334,
"will-it-scale.per_process_ops": 220009.33333333334,
"will-it-scale.time.elapsed_time": 93.86666666666667,
"will-it-scale.time.elapsed_time.max": 93.86666666666667,
"will-it-scale.time.file_system_inputs": 1800,
"will-it-scale.time.file_system_outputs": 149.33333333333334,
"will-it-scale.time.involuntary_context_switches": 421120,
"will-it-scale.time.major_page_faults": 37,
"will-it-scale.time.maximum_resident_set_size": 90016,
"will-it-scale.time.minor_page_faults": 80645,
"will-it-scale.time.page_size": 4096,
"will-it-scale.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got": 5714.666666666667,
"will-it-scale.time.system_time": 5256.176666666667,
"will-it-scale.time.user_time": 108.88333333333333,
"will-it-scale.time.voluntary_context_switches": 2513,
"will-it-scale.workload": 81764058.33333333
}
>
>
> Results:
>
> For scenario 2 (with sheaves but without "sheaves for all"), there is a
> noticeable performance improvement compared to scenario 1:
>
> will-it-scale.128.processes +34.3%
> will-it-scale.192.processes +35.4%
> will-it-scale.64.processes +31.5%
> will-it-scale.per_process_ops +33.7%
>
> For scenario 3 (after applying "sheaves for all"), performance slightly
> regressed compared to scenario 1:
>
> will-it-scale.128.processes -1.3%
> will-it-scale.192.processes -4.2%
> will-it-scale.64.processes -1.2%
> will-it-scale.per_process_ops -2.1%
>
> Analysis:
>
> So when the sheaf size for maple nodes is set to 32 by default, the performance
> of fully adopting the sheaves mechanism roughly matches the performance of the
> previous approach that relied solely on the percpu slab partial list.
>
> The performance regression observed with the "sheaves for all" patchset can
> actually be explained as follows: moving from scenario 1 to scenario 2
> introduces an additional cache layer, which boosts performance temporarily.
> When moving from scenario 2 to scenario 3, this additional cache layer is
> removed, then performance reverted to its original level.
>
> So I think the performance of the percpu partial list and the sheaves mechanism
> is roughly the same, which is consistent with our expectations.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Hao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists