Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:24:35AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > 2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier : > >> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles > >> per size across

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:24:35AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > 2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier : > >> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles > >> per size across 20 usage: > > > > I can't understand

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier : >> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles >> per size across 20 usage: > > I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier : >> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles >> per size across 20 usage: > > I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to my poor Engling. > Please explain more.

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier : > I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles > per size across 20 usage: I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to my poor Engling. Please explain more. You did single thread test? Why minimum

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier : > I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles > per size across 20 usage: I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to my poor Engling. Please explain more. You did single thread test? Why minimum cycles rather than

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles per size across 20 usage: size,before,after 8,63.00,64.50 (102.38%) 16,64.50,65.00 (100.78%) 32,65.00,65.00 (100.00%) 64,66.00,65.00 (98.48%) 128,66.00,65.00 (98.48%) 256,64.00,64.00 (100.00%) 512,65.00,66.00 (101.54%)

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles per size across 20 usage: size,before,after 8,63.00,64.50 (102.38%) 16,64.50,65.00 (100.78%) 32,65.00,65.00 (100.00%) 64,66.00,65.00 (98.48%) 128,66.00,65.00 (98.48%) 256,64.00,64.00 (100.00%) 512,65.00,66.00 (101.54%)

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:12:13PM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote: > I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse > picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be > useful? Single thread testing on slab_test would be meaningful because it also touch the

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:12:13PM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote: > I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse > picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be > useful? Single thread testing on slab_test would be meaningful because it also touch the

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be useful? Thanks, Thomas On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > >> Yes, I agree

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be useful? Thanks, Thomas On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > >> Yes, I agree that it is not

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes. Could you please provide meaningful test data?

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes. Could you please provide meaningful test data?

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes. On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > 0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > >> slab_test, before: >> 1 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles >> 1 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes. On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > 0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > >> slab_test, before: >> 1 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles >> 1 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles kfree -> 109

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > slab_test, before: > 1 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles > 1 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles kfree -> 109 cycles > 1 times kmalloc(32) -> 76 cycles kfree -> 119 cycles > 1 times kmalloc(64) -> 88 cycles kfree -> 114

Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > slab_test, before: > 1 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles > 1 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles kfree -> 109 cycles > 1 times kmalloc(32) -> 76 cycles kfree -> 119 cycles > 1 times kmalloc(64) -> 88 cycles kfree -> 114

[RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

Implements Freelist randomization for the SLUB allocator. It was previous implemented for the SLAB allocator. Both use the same configuration option (CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM). The list is randomized during initialization of a new set of pages. The order on different freelist sizes is

[RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization

Implements Freelist randomization for the SLUB allocator. It was previous implemented for the SLAB allocator. Both use the same configuration option (CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM). The list is randomized during initialization of a new set of pages. The order on different freelist sizes is