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>
next prev parent 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