Re: [PATCH][RFC] slub: increasing order reduces memory usage of some key caches

[Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>]

On (16/07/08 08:21), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:
> Richard Kennedy wrote:
> 
> 
> > on my amd64 3 gb ram desktop typical numbers :-
> > 
> > [kernel,objects,pages/slab,slabs,total pages,diff]
> > radix_tree_node
> > 2.6.26 33922,2,2423 	4846
> > +patch 33541,4,1165	4660,-186
> > dentry
> > 2.6.26	82136,1,4323	4323
> > +patch	79482,2,2038	4076,-247
> > the extra dentries would use 136 pages but that still leaves a saving of
> > 111 pages.
> 
> Good numbers....
> 

Indeed. clearly internal fragmentation is a problem.

> > Can anyone suggest any other tests that would be useful to run?
> > & Is there any way to measure what impact this is having on
> > fragmentation?
> 
> Mel would be able to tell you that but I think we better figure out what went wrong first.
> 

For internal fragmentation, there is this crappy script:
http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/intfrag_stat

run it as intfrag_stat -a and it should tell you what precentage of
memory is being wasted for dentries. The patch should show a difference
for the dentries.

How it would affect external fragmentation is harder to guess. It will
put more pressure for high-order allocations but at a glance, dentries
are using GFP_KERNEL so it should not be a major problem.
/proc/pagetypeinfo is the file to watch. If the count for "reclaimable"
arenas is higher and climbing over time, it will indiate that external
fragmentation would eventually become a problem.

> 
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 315c392..c365b04 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2301,6 +2301,14 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s, int forced_order)
> >  	if (order < 0)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > +	if (order < slub_max_order ) {
> > +		unsigned long waste = (PAGE_SIZE << order) % size;
> > +		if ( waste *2 >= size ) {
> > +			order++;
> > +			printk ( KERN_INFO "SLUB: increasing order %s->[%d] [%ld]\n",s->name,order,size);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	s->allocflags = 0;
> >  	if (order)
> >  		s->allocflags |= __GFP_COMP;
> 
> The order and waste calculation occurs in slab_order(). If modifications are needed then they need to occur in that function.
> 
> Looks like the existing code is not doing the best thing for dentries on your box?
> 
> On my 64 bit box dentries are 208 bytes long, 39 objects per page and 84 bytes
> are lost per order 1 page. So this would not trigger your patch at all. There must be something special to your configuration.
> 
> 
> /linux-2.6$ slabinfo dentry
> 
> Slabcache: dentry                Aliases:  0 Order :  1 Objects: 554209
> ** Reclaim accounting active
> 
> Sizes (bytes)     Slabs              Debug                Memory
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Object :     208  Total  :   14215   Sanity Checks : Off  Total: 116449280
> SlabObj:     208  Full   :   14179   Redzoning     : Off  Used : 115275472
> SlabSiz:    8192  Partial:      32   Poisoning     : Off  Loss : 1173808
> Loss   :       0  CpuSlab:       4   Tracking      : Off  Lalig:       0
> Align  :       8  Objects:      39   Tracing       : Off  Lpadd: 1137200
> 
> 
> Can you post the slabinfo information about the caches that you are concerned with? Please a before and after state.
> 
> 
> --
> 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>
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

--
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>