linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 01/11] mm/slab: fix the theoretical race by holding proper lock
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:50:56 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1460436666-20462-2-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>

While processing concurrent allocation, SLAB could be contended a lot
because it did a lots of work with holding a lock.  This patchset try to
reduce the number of critical section to reduce lock contention.  Major
changes are lockless decision to allocate more slab and lockless cpu cache
refill from the newly allocated slab.

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=365/806
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(64): Average=452/690
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(128): Average=736/886
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(256): Average=1167/985
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(512): Average=2088/1125
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(1024): Average=4115/1184
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(2048): Average=8451/1748
Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(4096): Average=16024/2048

* 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 performance improves greatly (roughly more than 50%) for the
object class whose size is more than 128 bytes.

This patch (of 11):

If we don't hold neither the slab_mutex nor the node lock, node's shared
array cache could be freed and re-populated. If __kmem_cache_shrink() is
called at the same time, it will call drain_array() with n->shared without
holding node lock so problem can happen. This patch fix the situation by
holding the node lock before trying to drain the shared array.

In addition, add a debug check to confirm that n->shared access race
doesn't exist.

v2:
o Hold the node lock instead of holding the slab_mutex (per Christoph)
o Add a debug check rather than adding code comment (per Nikolay)

Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
---
 mm/slab.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index a53a0f6..d8746c0 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -2173,6 +2173,11 @@ static void check_irq_on(void)
 	BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
 }
 
+static void check_mutex_acquired(void)
+{
+	BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&slab_mutex));
+}
+
 static void check_spinlock_acquired(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
@@ -2192,13 +2197,27 @@ static void check_spinlock_acquired_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep, int node)
 #else
 #define check_irq_off()	do { } while(0)
 #define check_irq_on()	do { } while(0)
+#define check_mutex_acquired()	do { } while(0)
 #define check_spinlock_acquired(x) do { } while(0)
 #define check_spinlock_acquired_node(x, y) do { } while(0)
 #endif
 
-static void drain_array(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct kmem_cache_node *n,
-			struct array_cache *ac,
-			int force, int node);
+static void drain_array_locked(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct array_cache *ac,
+				int node, bool free_all, struct list_head *list)
+{
+	int tofree;
+
+	if (!ac || !ac->avail)
+		return;
+
+	tofree = free_all ? ac->avail : (ac->limit + 4) / 5;
+	if (tofree > ac->avail)
+		tofree = (ac->avail + 1) / 2;
+
+	free_block(cachep, ac->entry, tofree, node, list);
+	ac->avail -= tofree;
+	memmove(ac->entry, &(ac->entry[tofree]), sizeof(void *) * ac->avail);
+}
 
 static void do_drain(void *arg)
 {
@@ -2222,6 +2241,7 @@ static void drain_cpu_caches(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
 {
 	struct kmem_cache_node *n;
 	int node;
+	LIST_HEAD(list);
 
 	on_each_cpu(do_drain, cachep, 1);
 	check_irq_on();
@@ -2229,8 +2249,13 @@ static void drain_cpu_caches(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
 		if (n->alien)
 			drain_alien_cache(cachep, n->alien);
 
-	for_each_kmem_cache_node(cachep, node, n)
-		drain_array(cachep, n, n->shared, 1, node);
+	for_each_kmem_cache_node(cachep, node, n) {
+		spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
+		drain_array_locked(cachep, n->shared, node, true, &list);
+		spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
+
+		slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
+	}
 }
 
 /*
@@ -3873,29 +3898,26 @@ skip_setup:
  * if drain_array() is used on the shared array.
  */
 static void drain_array(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct kmem_cache_node *n,
-			 struct array_cache *ac, int force, int node)
+			 struct array_cache *ac, int node)
 {
 	LIST_HEAD(list);
-	int tofree;
+
+	/* ac from n->shared can be freed if we don't hold the slab_mutex. */
+	check_mutex_acquired();
 
 	if (!ac || !ac->avail)
 		return;
-	if (ac->touched && !force) {
+
+	if (ac->touched) {
 		ac->touched = 0;
-	} else {
-		spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
-		if (ac->avail) {
-			tofree = force ? ac->avail : (ac->limit + 4) / 5;
-			if (tofree > ac->avail)
-				tofree = (ac->avail + 1) / 2;
-			free_block(cachep, ac->entry, tofree, node, &list);
-			ac->avail -= tofree;
-			memmove(ac->entry, &(ac->entry[tofree]),
-				sizeof(void *) * ac->avail);
-		}
-		spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
-		slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
+		return;
 	}
+
+	spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
+	drain_array_locked(cachep, ac, node, false, &list);
+	spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
+
+	slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -3933,7 +3955,7 @@ static void cache_reap(struct work_struct *w)
 
 		reap_alien(searchp, n);
 
-		drain_array(searchp, n, cpu_cache_get(searchp), 0, node);
+		drain_array(searchp, n, cpu_cache_get(searchp), node);
 
 		/*
 		 * These are racy checks but it does not matter
@@ -3944,7 +3966,7 @@ static void cache_reap(struct work_struct *w)
 
 		n->next_reap = jiffies + REAPTIMEOUT_NODE;
 
-		drain_array(searchp, n, n->shared, 0, node);
+		drain_array(searchp, n, n->shared, node);
 
 		if (n->free_touched)
 			n->free_touched = 0;
-- 
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-12  4:51 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 ` js1304 [this message]
2016-04-12 16:38   ` [PATCH v2 01/11] mm/slab: fix the theoretical race by holding proper lock 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 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache js1304
2016-04-12  7:24   ` 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=1460436666-20462-2-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