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

[Rongwei Wang]

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!