From: js1304@gmail.com
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:51:06 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1460436666-20462-12-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1460436666-20462-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To check whther free objects exist or not precisely, we need to grab a
lock. But, accuracy isn't that important because race window would be
even small and if there is too much free object, cache reaper would reap
it. So, this patch makes the check for free object exisistence not to
hold a lock. This will reduce lock contention in heavily allocation case.
Note that until now, n->shared can be freed during the processing by
writing slabinfo, but, with some trick in this patch, we can access it
freely within interrupt disabled period.
Below is the result of concurrent allocation/free in slab allocation
benchmark made by Christoph a long time ago. I make the output simpler.
The number shows cycle count during alloc/free respectively so less is
better.
* Before
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(32): Average=248/966
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(64): Average=261/949
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(128): Average=314/1016
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(256): Average=741/1061
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(512): Average=1246/1152
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(1024): Average=2437/1259
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(2048): Average=4980/1800
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(4096): Average=9000/2078
* After
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(32): Average=344/792
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(64): Average=347/882
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(128): Average=390/959
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(256): Average=393/1067
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(512): Average=683/1229
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(1024): Average=1295/1325
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(2048): Average=2513/1664
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(4096): Average=4742/2172
It shows that allocation performance decreases for the object size up to
128 and it may be due to extra checks in cache_alloc_refill(). But, with
considering improvement of free performance, net result looks the same.
Result for other size class looks very promising, roughly, 50% performance
improvement.
v2: replace kick_all_cpus_sync() with synchronize_sched().
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
---
mm/slab.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index cf12fbd..13e74aa 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -952,6 +952,15 @@ static int setup_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
+ /*
+ * To protect lockless access to n->shared during irq disabled context.
+ * If n->shared isn't NULL in irq disabled context, accessing to it is
+ * guaranteed to be valid until irq is re-enabled, because it will be
+ * freed after synchronize_sched().
+ */
+ if (force_change)
+ synchronize_sched();
+
fail:
kfree(old_shared);
kfree(new_shared);
@@ -2880,7 +2889,7 @@ static void *cache_alloc_refill(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
{
int batchcount;
struct kmem_cache_node *n;
- struct array_cache *ac;
+ struct array_cache *ac, *shared;
int node;
void *list = NULL;
struct page *page;
@@ -2901,11 +2910,16 @@ static void *cache_alloc_refill(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
n = get_node(cachep, node);
BUG_ON(ac->avail > 0 || !n);
+ shared = READ_ONCE(n->shared);
+ if (!n->free_objects && (!shared || !shared->avail))
+ goto direct_grow;
+
spin_lock(&n->list_lock);
+ shared = READ_ONCE(n->shared);
/* See if we can refill from the shared array */
- if (n->shared && transfer_objects(ac, n->shared, batchcount)) {
- n->shared->touched = 1;
+ if (shared && transfer_objects(ac, shared, batchcount)) {
+ shared->touched = 1;
goto alloc_done;
}
@@ -2927,6 +2941,7 @@ alloc_done:
spin_unlock(&n->list_lock);
fixup_objfreelist_debug(cachep, &list);
+direct_grow:
if (unlikely(!ac->avail)) {
/* Check if we can use obj in pfmemalloc slab */
if (sk_memalloc_socks()) {
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-12 4:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-12 4:50 [PATCH v2 00/11] mm/slab: reduce lock contention in alloc path js1304
2016-04-12 4:50 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] mm/slab: fix the theoretical race by holding proper lock js1304
2016-04-12 16:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2016-04-14 1:56 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-04-12 4:50 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] mm/slab: remove BAD_ALIEN_MAGIC again js1304
2016-04-12 16:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2016-04-12 4:50 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] mm/slab: drain the free slab as much as possible js1304
2016-04-12 4:50 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] mm/slab: factor out kmem_cache_node initialization code js1304
2016-04-12 16:53 ` Christoph Lameter
2016-04-26 0:47 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-04-12 4:51 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] mm/slab: clean-up kmem_cache_node setup js1304
2016-04-12 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2016-04-12 4:51 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] mm/slab: don't keep free slabs if free_objects exceeds free_limit js1304
2016-07-22 11:51 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-07-26 7:18 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-04-12 4:51 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] mm/slab: racy access/modify the slab color js1304
2016-04-12 4:51 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] mm/slab: make cache_grow() handle the page allocated on arbitrary node js1304
2016-04-12 4:51 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] mm/slab: separate cache_grow() to two parts js1304
2016-04-12 4:51 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] mm/slab: refill cpu cache through a new slab without holding a node lock js1304
2016-04-12 4:51 ` js1304 [this message]
2016-04-12 7:24 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2016-04-12 8:16 ` Joonsoo Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1460436666-20462-12-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--to=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox