netdev - Re: [MM PATCH V4.1 5/6] slub: support for bulk free with SLUB freelists

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20151002145044.781c911ea98e3ea74ae5cf3b@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:50:44 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [MM PATCH V4.1 5/6] slub: support for bulk free with SLUB
 freelists

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:40:39 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:

> > Thus, I need introducing new code like this patch and at the same time
> > have to reduce the number of instruction-cache misses/usage.  In this
> > case we solve the problem by kmem_cache_free_bulk() not getting called
> > too often. Thus, +17 bytes will hopefully not matter too much... but on
> > the other hand we sort-of know that calling kmem_cache_free_bulk() will
> > cause icache misses.
> 
> I just tested this change on top of my net-use-case patchset... and for
> some strange reason the code with this WARN_ON is faster and have much
> less icache-misses (1,278,276 vs 2,719,158 L1-icache-load-misses).
> 
> Thus, I think we should keep your fix.
> 
> I cannot explain why using WARN_ON() is better and cause less icache
> misses.  And I hate when I don't understand every detail.
> 
>  My theory is, after reading the assembler code, that the UD2
> instruction (from BUG_ON) cause some kind of icache decoder stall
> (Intel experts???).  Now that should not be a problem, as UD2 is
> obviously placed as an unlikely branch and left at the end of the asm
> function call.  But the call to __slab_free() is also placed at the end
> of the asm function (gets inlined from slab_free() as unlikely).  And
> it is actually fairly likely that bulking is calling __slab_free (slub
> slowpath call).

Yes, I was looking at the asm code and the difference is pretty small:
a not-taken ud2 versus a not-taken "call warn_slowpath_null", mainly.

But I wouldn't assume that the microbenchmarking is meaningful.  I've
seen shockingly large (and quite repeatable) microbenchmarking
differences from small changes in code which isn't even executed (and
this is one such case, actually).  You add or remove just one byte of
text and half the kernel (or half the .o file?) gets a different
alignment and this seems to change everything.

Deleting the BUG altogether sounds the best solution.  As long as the
kernel crashes in some manner, we'll be able to work out what happened.
And it's cant-happen anyway, isn't it?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html