114 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
114 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
.\"
|
|
.\" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
.\" "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
|
|
.\" <phk@login.dknet.dk> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
|
|
.\" can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think
|
|
.\" this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return. Poul-Henning Kamp
|
|
.\" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
.\"
|
|
.\" $Id: performance.ms,v 1.2 1996/11/14 08:10:31 phk Exp $
|
|
.\"
|
|
.ds RH Performance
|
|
.NH
|
|
Performance
|
|
.PP
|
|
Performance for a malloc(3) implementation comes as two variables:
|
|
.IP
|
|
A: How much time does it use for searching and manipulating data structures.
|
|
We will refer to this as ``overhead time''.
|
|
.IP
|
|
B: How well does it manage the storage.
|
|
This rather vague metric we call ``quality of allocation''.
|
|
.PP
|
|
The overhead time is easy to measure, just to a lot of malloc/free calls
|
|
of various kinds and combination, and compare the results.
|
|
.PP
|
|
The quality of allocation is not quite as simple as that.
|
|
One measure of quality is the size of the process, that should obviously
|
|
be minimized.
|
|
Another measure is the execution time of the process.
|
|
This is not an obvious indicator of quality, but people will generally
|
|
agree that it should be minimized as well, and if malloc(3) can do
|
|
anything to do so, it should.
|
|
Explanation why it is still a good metric follows:
|
|
.PP
|
|
In a traditional segment/swap kernel, the desirable behaviour of a process
|
|
is to keep the brk(2) as low as possible, thus minimizing the size of the
|
|
data/bss/heap segment, which in turn translates to a smaller process and
|
|
a smaller probability of the process being swapped out, qed: faster
|
|
execution time as an average.
|
|
.PP
|
|
In a paging environment this is not a bad choice for a default, but
|
|
a couple of details needs to be looked at much more carefully.
|
|
.PP
|
|
First of all, the size of a process becomes a more vague concept since
|
|
only the pages that are actually used need to be in primary storage
|
|
for execution to progress, and they only need to be there when used.
|
|
That implies that many more processes can fit in the same amount of
|
|
primary storage, since most processes have a high degree of locality
|
|
of reference and thus only need some fraction of their pages to actually
|
|
do their job.
|
|
.PP
|
|
From this it follows that the interesting size of the process, is some
|
|
subset of the total amount of virtual memory occupied by the process.
|
|
This number isn't a constant, it varies depending on the whereabouts
|
|
of the process, and it may indeed fluctuate wildly over the lifetime
|
|
of the process.
|
|
.PP
|
|
One of the names for this vague concept is ``current working set''.
|
|
It has been defined many different ways over the years, mostly to
|
|
satisfy and support claims in marketing or benchmark contexts.
|
|
.PP
|
|
For now we can simply say that it is the number of pages the process
|
|
needs in order to run at a sufficiently low paging rate in a congested
|
|
primary storage.
|
|
(If primary storage isn't congested, this is not really important
|
|
of course, but most systems would be better off using the pages for
|
|
disk-cache or similar functions, so from that perspective it will
|
|
always be congested.)
|
|
If the number of pages is too small, the process will wait for its
|
|
pages to be read from secondary storage much of the time, if it's too
|
|
big, the space could be used better for something else.
|
|
.PP
|
|
From the view of any single process, this number of pages is
|
|
"all of my pages", but from the point of view of the OS it should
|
|
be tuned to maximise the total throughput of all the processes on
|
|
the machine at the time.
|
|
This is usually done using various kinds of least-recently-used
|
|
replacement algorithms to select page candidates for replacement.
|
|
.PP
|
|
With this knowledge, can we decide what the performance goal is for
|
|
a modern malloc(3) ?
|
|
Well, it's almost as simple as it used to be:
|
|
.B
|
|
Minimize the number of pages accessed.
|
|
.R
|
|
.PP
|
|
This really is the core of it all.
|
|
If the number of accessed pages is smaller, then locality of reference is
|
|
higher, and all kinds of caches (which is essentially what the
|
|
primary storage is in a VM system) work better.
|
|
.PP
|
|
It's interesting to notice that the classical malloc fails on this one
|
|
because the information about free chunks is kept with the free
|
|
chunks themselves. In some of the benchmarks this came out as all the
|
|
pages being paged in every time a malloc call was made, because malloc
|
|
had to traverse the free list to find a suitable chunk for the allocation.
|
|
If memory is not in use, then you shouldn't access it.
|
|
.PP
|
|
The secondary goal is more evident:
|
|
.B
|
|
Try to work in pages.
|
|
.R
|
|
.PP
|
|
That makes it easier for the kernel, and wastes less virtual memory.
|
|
Most modern implementations do this when they interact with the
|
|
kernel, but few try to avoid objects spanning pages.
|
|
.PP
|
|
If an object's size
|
|
is less than or equal to a page, there is no reason for it to span two pages.
|
|
Having objects span pages means that two pages must be
|
|
paged in, if that object is accessed.
|
|
.PP
|
|
With this analysis in the luggage, we can start coding.
|