Re: slab-nomerge (was Re: [git pull] device mapper changes for 4.3)

Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-09-07T09:30:39Z

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 20:51:09 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > The double standard is the problem here. No notification, proof,
> > discussion or review was needed to turn on slab merging for
> > everyone, but you're setting a very high bar to jump if anyone wants
> > to turn it off in their code.
>
> Ehh. You realize that almost the only load that is actually seriously
> allocator-limited is networking?
>
> And slub was beating slab on that? And slub has been doing the merging
> since day one. Slab was just changed to try to keep up with the
> winning strategy.

Sorry, I have to correct you on this. The slub allocator is not as
fast as you might think. The slab allocator is actually faster for
networking.

IP-forwarding, single CPU, single flow UDP (highly tuned):
* Allocator slub: 2043575 pps
* Allocator slab: 2088295 pps

Difference slab faster than slub:
* +44720 pps and -10.48ns

The slub allocator have a faster "fastpath", if your workload is
fast-reusing within the same per-cpu page-slab, but once the workload
increases you hit the slowpath, and then slab catches up. Slub looks
great in micro-benchmarking.

As you can see in patchset:
[PATCH 0/3] Network stack, first user of SLAB/kmem_cache bulk free API.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/137469/focus=376625

I'm working on speeding up slub to the level of slab. And it seems
like I have succeeded with half-a-nanosec 2090522 pps (+2227 pps or
0.51 ns).

And with "slab_nomerge" I get even high performance:
* slub: bulk-free and slab_nomerge: 2121824 pps
* Diff to slub: +78249 and -18.05ns

--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer