linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: akpm@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo@lge.com,
	brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] slub: Support for array operations
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:43:16 +1300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150212104316.2d5c32ea@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1502111305520.7547@gentwo.org>

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:07:24 -0600 (CST)
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> 
> > > +
> > > +
> > > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> >
> > This is quite an expensive lock with irqsave.
> 
> Yes but we take it for all partial pages.

Sure, that is good, but this might be a contention point. In a micro
benchmark, this contention should be visible, but in real use-cases the
given subsystem also need to spend time to use these elements before
requesting a new batch (as long as NIC cleanup cycles don't get too
synchronized)


> > Yet another lock cost.
> 
> Yup the page access is shared but there is one per page. Contention is
> unlikely.

Yes, contention is unlikely, but every atomic operation is expensive.
On my system the measured cost is 8ns, and a lock/unlock does two, thus
16ns.  Which we then do per page freelist.


> > > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > > +	return allocated;
> >
> > I estimate (on my CPU) the locking cost itself is more than 32ns, plus
> > the irqsave (which I've also found quite expensive, alone 14ns).  Thus,
> > estimated 46ns.  Single elem slub fast path cost is 18-19ns. Thus 3-4
> > elem bulking should be enough to amortized the cost, guess we are still
> > good :-)
> 
> We can require that interrupt are off when the functions are called. Then
> we can avoid the "save" part?

Yes, we could also do so with an "_irqoff" variant of the func call,
but given we are defining the API we can just require this from the
start.

I plan to use this in softirq, where I know interrupts are on, but I
can use the less-expensive "non-save" variant local_irq_{disable,enable}.

Measurements show (x86_64 E5-2695):
 *  2.860 ns cost for local_irq_{disable,enable}
 * 14.840 ns cost for local_irq_save()+local_irq_restore()

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

--
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:[~2015-02-11 21:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-10 19:48 [PATCH 0/3] Slab allocator array operations V2 Christoph Lameter
2015-02-10 19:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations Christoph Lameter
2015-02-10 22:43   ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-02-10 23:58   ` David Rientjes
2015-02-11 18:47     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-11 20:18       ` David Rientjes
2015-02-11 22:04         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-12  0:35           ` David Rientjes
2015-02-13  2:35         ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-02-13 15:47           ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-13 21:20             ` David Rientjes
2015-02-17  5:15             ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-02-17 16:03               ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-17 21:32                 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-02-18 23:02                   ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-10 19:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] slub: Support " Christoph Lameter
2015-02-11  4:48   ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-02-11 19:07     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-11 21:43       ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2015-02-11 22:06         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-12  0:16           ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-02-12  2:46             ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-13  2:45   ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-02-13 15:49     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-17  5:26       ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-02-10 19:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] Array alloc test code Christoph Lameter

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=20150212104316.2d5c32ea@redhat.com \
    --to=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    /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