linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: jaypatel@linux.ibm.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] SLUB: calculate_order() cleanups
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 14:38:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6db4338b-279e-acc6-9e95-17e0f2716f0c@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c933e2b06ab9090d9190bac41ebbc175b0a9357.camel@linux.ibm.com>

On 9/28/23 06:46, Jay Patel wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 16:53 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Since reviewing recent patches made me finally dig into these
>> functions
>> in details for the first time, I've also noticed some opportunities
>> for
>> cleanups that should make them simpler and also deliver more
>> consistent
>> results for some corner case object sizes (probably not seen in
>> practice). Thus patch 3 can increase slab orders somewhere, but only
>> in
>> the way that was already intended. Otherwise it's almost no
>> functional
>> changes.
>> 
> Hi Vlastimil,

Hi, Jay!

> This cleanup patchset looks promising.
> I've conducted test
> on PowerPC with 16 CPUs and a 64K page size, and here are the results.
> 
> S
> lub Memory Usage
> 
> +-------------------+--------+------------+
> |                   | Normal | With Patch |
> +-------------------+--------+------------+
> | Total Slub Memory | 476992 | 478464     |
> | Wastage           | 431    | 451        |
> +-------------------+--------+------------+
> 
> Also, I have not detected any changes in the page order for slub caches
> across all objects with 64K page size.

As expected. Which should mean any benchmark differences should be noise and
not caused by the patches.

> Hackbench Results
> 
> +-------+----+---------+------------+----------+
> |     
>   |    | Normal  | With Patch |          |
> +-------+----+---------+-----
> -------+----------+
> | Amean | 1  | 1.1530  | 1.1347     | ( 1.59%) |
> |
> Amean | 4  | 3.9220  | 3.8240     | ( 2.50%) |
> | Amean | 7  | 6.7943  |
> 6.6300     | ( 2.42%) |
> | Amean | 12 | 11.7067 | 11.4423    | ( 2.26%) |
> | Amean | 21 | 20.6617 | 20.1680    | ( 2.39%) |
> | Amean | 30 | 29.4200
> | 28.6460    | ( 2.63%) |
> | Amean | 48 | 47.2797 | 46.2820    | ( 2.11%)
> |
> | Amean | 64 | 63.4680 | 62.1813    | ( 2.03%) |
> +-------+----+------
> ---+------------+----------+  
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jay Patel
> <jaypatel@linux.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Jay Patel <jaypatel@linux.ibm.com>

Thanks! Applied your Reviewed-and-tested-by:

> Th
> ank You 
> Jay Patel
>> Vlastimil Babka (4):
>>   mm/slub: simplify the last resort slab order calculation
>>   mm/slub: remove min_objects loop from calculate_order()
>>   mm/slub: attempt to find layouts up to 1/2 waste in
>> calculate_order()
>>   mm/slub: refactor calculate_order() and calc_slab_order()
>> 
>>  mm/slub.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
>> --
>>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>> 
> 



      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-10-02 12:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-08 14:53 Vlastimil Babka
2023-09-08 14:53 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm/slub: simplify the last resort slab order calculation Vlastimil Babka
2023-09-19  7:56   ` Feng Tang
2023-09-20  6:38     ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-09-20  7:09       ` Feng Tang
2023-09-08 14:53 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm/slub: remove min_objects loop from calculate_order() Vlastimil Babka
2023-09-08 14:53 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm/slub: attempt to find layouts up to 1/2 waste in calculate_order() Vlastimil Babka
2023-09-20 13:11   ` Feng Tang
2023-09-08 14:53 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm/slub: refactor calculate_order() and calc_slab_order() Vlastimil Babka
2023-09-11  5:56   ` kernel test robot
2023-09-15 13:36     ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-09-16  1:28   ` Baoquan He
2023-09-22  7:00     ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-09-22  7:29       ` Baoquan He
2023-09-20 13:36   ` Feng Tang
2023-09-22  6:55     ` Vlastimil Babka
     [not found] ` <5c933e2b06ab9090d9190bac41ebbc175b0a9357.camel@linux.ibm.com>
2023-10-02 12:38   ` Vlastimil Babka [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=6db4338b-279e-acc6-9e95-17e0f2716f0c@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=jaypatel@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    /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