From: <hu.shengming@zte.com.cn>
To: <hao.li@linux.dev>
Cc: <vbabka@kernel.org>, <harry@kernel.org>,
<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <cl@gentwo.org>,
<rientjes@google.com>, <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<zhang.run@zte.com.cn>, <xu.xin16@zte.com.cn>,
<yang.tao172@zte.com.cn>, <yang.yang29@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm/slub: defer freelist construction until after bulk allocation from a new slab
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:35:02 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202604141635029550xPVsxfQNOo6dY8p8AdSC@zte.com.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6hedy72mmajtutplztj57k63odkidzjr5zyn7yh7p3c62ybbj7@jupudx6k4lpz>
Hao wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 11:04:17PM +0800, hu.shengming@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > From: Shengming Hu <hu.shengming@zte.com.cn>
> >
> > Allocations from a fresh slab can consume all of its objects, and the
> > freelist built during slab allocation is discarded immediately as a result.
> >
> > Instead of special-casing the whole-slab bulk refill case, defer freelist
> > construction until after objects are emitted from a fresh slab.
> > new_slab() now only allocates the slab and initializes its metadata.
> > refill_objects() then obtains a fresh slab and lets alloc_from_new_slab()
> > emit objects directly, building a freelist only for the objects left
> > unallocated; the same change is applied to alloc_single_from_new_slab().
> >
> > To keep CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM=y/n on the same path, introduce a
> > small iterator abstraction for walking free objects in allocation order.
> > The iterator is used both for filling the sheaf and for building the
> > freelist of the remaining objects.
> >
> > Also mark setup_object() inline. After this optimization, the compiler no
> > longer consistently inlines this helper in the hot path, which can hurt
> > performance. Explicitly marking it inline restores the expected code
> > generation.
> >
> > This reduces per-object overhead when allocating from a fresh slab.
> > The most direct benefit is in the paths that allocate objects first and
> > only build a freelist for the remainder afterward: bulk allocation from
> > a new slab in refill_objects(), single-object allocation from a new slab
> > in ___slab_alloc(), and the corresponding early-boot paths that now use
> > the same deferred-freelist scheme. Since refill_objects() is also used to
> > refill sheaves, the optimization is not limited to the small set of
> > kmem_cache_alloc_bulk()/kmem_cache_free_bulk() users; regular allocation
> > workloads may benefit as well when they refill from a fresh slab.
> >
> > In slub_bulk_bench, the time per object drops by about 32% to 70% with
> > CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM=n, and by about 50% to 67% with
> > CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM=y. This benchmark is intended to isolate the
> > cost removed by this change: each iteration allocates exactly
> > slab->objects from a fresh slab. That makes it a near best-case scenario
> > for deferred freelist construction, because the old path still built a
> > full freelist even when no objects remained, while the new path avoids
> > that work. Realistic workloads may see smaller end-to-end gains depending
> > on how often allocations reach this fresh-slab refill path.>
> Thanks for both Shengming and Harry's hard work!>
> This patch looks good to me, and the overall approach makes sense. I did not
> see any other issues, so:>
> Reviewed-by: Hao Li <hao.li@linux.dev>>
> I also ran a few tests on my machine. From what I saw, the mmap and ublk
> cases did not show a very noticeable difference, but I also did not observe any
> regression, which is great. My guess is that the fully consumed case as an
> ideal scenario may still be relatively uncommon in practice.>
> Tested-by: Hao Li <hao.li@linux.dev>>
Hi Hao,
Thank you for your review and for running the tests.
This patch primarily optimizes the allocation path when a new slab is required.
The mmap and ublk cases may not exercise this path very frequently, which could
explain why the performance difference is not very noticeable there.
Have a good day! :-)
--
With Best Regards,
Shengming
> --
> Thanks,
> Hao
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-14 8:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-13 15:04 hu.shengming
2026-04-14 3:55 ` Hao Li
2026-04-14 8:35 ` hu.shengming [this message]
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=202604141635029550xPVsxfQNOo6dY8p8AdSC@zte.com.cn \
--to=hu.shengming@zte.com.cn \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=hao.li@linux.dev \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=xu.xin16@zte.com.cn \
--cc=yang.tao172@zte.com.cn \
--cc=yang.yang29@zte.com.cn \
--cc=zhang.run@zte.com.cn \
/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