[Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bálint Réczey <balint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi All,

Please provide the input data for letting others reproduce the results
or perform the performance tests on pcap files already available to
the public.

I'm not a fan of implementing custom memory management methods because
partly because I highly doubt we can beat jemalloc easily on
performance

The only place we reliably beat jemalloc (or even glib) is when we have a large number of allocations that live together, and can be freed with free_all. Anything else is basically noise. As Jakub's test noted, the main block allocator is actually slightly slower than g_slice_* if the frees are done manually.

 

and custom allocation methods can also have nasty bugs
like the one observed in OpenSSL:
http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/analysis-of-openssl-freelist-reuse

I wrote a short post about making all programs in Debian resistant to
malloc() related attacks using ASAN and wmem in its current form
prevents implementing the protection:
http://balintreczey.hu/blog/proposing-amd64-hardened-architecture-for-debian/

It's not clear to me from reading the blog post or the mail to debian what the actual protections would be, or why wmem would prevent them from working. Could you clarify please? Glib has its own allocator logic internally for g_slice_*, does this also cause problems?

 

Please don't sacrifice protection for 2% speedup. Please keep wmem
usage for cases where it is used for garbage collecting (free() after
end of frame/capture file) not when the allocation and deallocation
are already done properly.

Thanks,
Balint

2014-07-11 8:58 GMT+02:00 Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:12:48PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
>> If we're in topic of optimizing 'slower' [de]allocations in common functions:
>>
>> - tvb allocation/deallocation (2.5%, or 3.4% when no filtering)
>>
>>    243,931,671  *  ???:tvb_new [/tmp/wireshark/epan/.libs/libwireshark.so.0.0.0]
>>    202,052,290  >   ???:g_slice_alloc (2463493x) [/usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.3600.4]
>>
>>    291,765,126  *  ???:tvb_free_chain [/tmp/wireshark/epan/.libs/libwireshark.so.0.0.0]
>>    256,390,635  >   ???:g_slice_free1 (2435843x) [/usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.3600.4]
>
>> This, or next week I'll try to do tvb.
>
> ... or maybe this week:
>
> ver0 | 18,055,719,820 (-----------) | Base version 96f0585268f1cc4e820767c4038c10ed4915c12a
> ver1 | 18,185,185,838 (0.6% slower) | Change tvb allocator g_slice_* to wmem with file scope
> ver2 | 17,809,433,204 (1.4% faster) | Change tvb allocator g_slice_* to wmem with file/packet scope
> ver3 | 17,812,128,887 (1.3% faster) | Change tvb allocator g_slice_* to simple object allocator with epan scope
> ver4 | 17,704,132,561 (2.0% faster) | Change tvb allocator g_slice_* to simple object allocator with file scope
>
> I have uploaded patches & profiler outputs to: http://www.wireshark.org/~darkjames/tvb-opt-allocator/
>
> Please review, and check what version is OK to be applied.
>
>
> P.S: I'll might find some time to do ver5 with slab allocator, but it'll look like object allocator API with epan scope.
>
> Cheers,
> Jakub.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe