From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB6BC433EF for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 00:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27CF60F92 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 00:41:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org B27CF60F92 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 32CD3900002; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2DD0E6B0072; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:41:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1CB2E900002; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:41:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0047.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.47]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1A36B0071 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin34.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77B98249980 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 00:41:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78675044448.34.C6CB77C Received: from mail-pl1-f171.google.com (mail-pl1-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) by imf26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62054200FC9D for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 00:41:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f171.google.com with SMTP id w14so7226917pll.2 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 17:41:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=gbNbd7Wz3p2O73QmnnBxtoMhGaSnr/esB6d0N4BYdkI=; b=UdDACpcGI1OYHgzs7fn54lJkzb95zBJCcBzcGHNvaiBRASRQWD/q6MKpoOlieuDAdK VA9WjxdGPPpazXJ5w2HKmLOSjbaymw8QhO6irlr9R4gsvTVU/fe7HiEAMqSE2T7ADJMC zMZY6wOKabiw9VJcgpTGv5Zr6H21Kk/a6GLDIxTErukM6XU9wI/uZZkEl6U7V+UFK1J6 Fsz82c/1p8NApmcnC6qonAyfKv9KD8RCE71s/pS9T9UJZbudo6pE5GcnsBOi6s0H+jit RUd/oCfW4XV+Qs6aEuFb1X//FHvWnu+LiA+dVQyvFS506KDB5NIrRbmJ2Tf5w4tKAKTn bXHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=gbNbd7Wz3p2O73QmnnBxtoMhGaSnr/esB6d0N4BYdkI=; b=oWjJHx1VfJ7nHnKOSZp02hRIMzZpgoLAb3jRsIv+ihZSTgjUtGi5a5A+GHYvsoaePT g+wI5wG4Cjn99RAj1QqHHrzYD0cuOjp0oLttiQxRGvnjm58xjV0Z5AIjHrn3LiILiTIh TqsHAcLx3+1dOHN4LfCu+1C6pqaScwgiSVU/BxzuVlkLC0BMgtP04b4x9ESj5dwDuAd4 +Cb61jtNot6+xUv4DGlZY3P090gt5oBgL4SJgrdX83yE637oBwNo4OOIjbHwDI80ANri C2c2zQWLiEVeRytrHxMiPwfnYiLJvqunmwkkdNox61utxidMc3z9M4wHVUvD/EK+SMxT 1odA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Teo5VPd9jrtxSPL8L9txp7QnhAti1WRwpowmyTvbs8eczeCOq ccqidhCEHts4ZvFJd7E1qsE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYwe7zdrfsKr5vEd8p4BqsNBWp4hcUbTNFi5nOi3lN9tZWD/JsDhtna7BolMR7mhRN0f8aZw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b40a:b0:13d:cbcd:2e64 with SMTP id x10-20020a170902b40a00b0013dcbcd2e64mr12554348plr.18.1633740063356; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 17:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kvm.asia-northeast3-a.c.our-ratio-313919.internal (24.151.64.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.64.151.24]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lp9sm335253pjb.35.2021.10.08.17.41.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 08 Oct 2021 17:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 00:40:58 +0000 From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [RFC] Some questions and an idea on SLUB/SLAB Message-ID: <20211009004058.GA4992@kvm.asia-northeast3-a.c.our-ratio-313919.internal> References: <20211009001903.GA3285@kvm.asia-northeast3-a.c.our-ratio-313919.internal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: imf26.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=UdDACpcG; spf=pass (imf26.hostedemail.com: domain of 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 62054200FC9D X-Stat-Signature: 3n16s6r6jszo5eefpft1ygdh9rbf9863 X-HE-Tag: 1633740064-549189 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 01:33:43AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 12:19:03AM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: > > - Is there a reason that SLUB does not implement cache coloring? > > it will help utilizing hardware cache. Especially in block layer, > > they are literally *squeezing* its performance now. > > Have you tried turning off cache colouring in SLAB and seeing if > performance changes? My impression is that it's useful for caches > with low associativity (direct mapped / 2-way / 4-way), but loses > its effectiveness for caches with higher associativity. For example, > my laptop: > > L1 Data Cache: 48KB, 12-way associative, 64 byte line size > L1 Instruction Cache: 32KB, 8-way associative, 64 byte line size > L2 Unified Cache: 1280KB, 20-way associative, 64 byte line size > L3 Unified Cache: 12288KB, 12-way associative, 64 byte line size > > I very much doubt that cache colouring is still useful for this machine. Hello Matthew, What benchmark did you use for test? - Hyeonggon