From: Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.de>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
songmuchun@bytedance.com, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
penberg@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and slab_free
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 10:33:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b434d4c-2a19-9ac1-b2b9-b767b642ec0c@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2206171617560.638056@gentwo.de>
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!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-18 2:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-29 8:15 [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and slab_free Rongwei Wang
2022-05-29 8:15 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm/slub: improve consistency of nr_slabs count Rongwei Wang
2022-05-29 12:26 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-05-29 8:15 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm/slub: add nr_full count for debugging slub Rongwei Wang
2022-05-29 11:37 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: fix the race between validate_slab and slab_free Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-05-30 21:14 ` David Rientjes
2022-06-02 15:14 ` Christoph Lameter
2022-06-03 3:35 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-06-07 12:14 ` Christoph Lameter
2022-06-08 3:04 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-06-08 12:23 ` Christoph Lameter
2022-06-11 4:04 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-06-13 13:50 ` Christoph Lameter
2022-06-14 2:38 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-06-17 7:55 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-06-17 14:19 ` Christoph Lameter
2022-06-18 2:33 ` Rongwei Wang [this message]
2022-06-20 11:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2022-06-26 16:48 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-06-17 9:40 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-07-15 8:05 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-07-15 10:33 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-07-15 10:51 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-05-31 3:47 ` Muchun Song
2022-06-04 11:05 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-05-31 8:50 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-07-18 11:09 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-07-19 14:15 ` Rongwei Wang
2022-07-19 14:21 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-07-19 14:43 ` Rongwei Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1b434d4c-2a19-9ac1-b2b9-b767b642ec0c@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.de \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.