From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, chengming.zhou@linux.dev
Cc: cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] slub: Optimize deactivate_slab()
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 18:55:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <93dcdf0c-336b-cb20-d646-7a48d872e08c@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB=+i9RR-n4q5NU6LFqmhM8ys4kM0SPqwj0zYtr4twu=yYmPPA@mail.gmail.com>
On 12/3/23 10:23, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 12:25 PM <chengming.zhou@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>>
>> Since the introduce of unfrozen slabs on cpu partial list, we don't
>> need to synchronize the slab frozen state under the node list_lock.
>>
>> The caller of deactivate_slab() and the caller of __slab_free() won't
>> manipulate the slab list concurrently.
>>
>> So we can get node list_lock in the last stage if we really need to
>> manipulate the slab list in this path.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> Tested-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> mm/slub.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index bcb5b2c4e213..d137468fe4b9 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -2468,10 +2468,8 @@ static void init_kmem_cache_cpus(struct kmem_cache *s)
>> static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>> void *freelist)
>> {
>> - enum slab_modes { M_NONE, M_PARTIAL, M_FREE, M_FULL_NOLIST };
>> struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
>> int free_delta = 0;
>> - enum slab_modes mode = M_NONE;
>> void *nextfree, *freelist_iter, *freelist_tail;
>> int tail = DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD;
>> unsigned long flags = 0;
>> @@ -2509,65 +2507,40 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>> /*
>> * Stage two: Unfreeze the slab while splicing the per-cpu
>> * freelist to the head of slab's freelist.
>> - *
>> - * Ensure that the slab is unfrozen while the list presence
>> - * reflects the actual number of objects during unfreeze.
>> - *
>> - * We first perform cmpxchg holding lock and insert to list
>> - * when it succeed. If there is mismatch then the slab is not
>> - * unfrozen and number of objects in the slab may have changed.
>> - * Then release lock and retry cmpxchg again.
>> */
>> -redo:
>> -
>> - old.freelist = READ_ONCE(slab->freelist);
>> - old.counters = READ_ONCE(slab->counters);
>> - VM_BUG_ON(!old.frozen);
>> -
>> - /* Determine target state of the slab */
>> - new.counters = old.counters;
>> - if (freelist_tail) {
>> - new.inuse -= free_delta;
>> - set_freepointer(s, freelist_tail, old.freelist);
>> - new.freelist = freelist;
>> - } else
>> - new.freelist = old.freelist;
>> -
>> - new.frozen = 0;
>> + do {
>> + old.freelist = READ_ONCE(slab->freelist);
>> + old.counters = READ_ONCE(slab->counters);
>> + VM_BUG_ON(!old.frozen);
>> +
>> + /* Determine target state of the slab */
>> + new.counters = old.counters;
>> + new.frozen = 0;
>> + if (freelist_tail) {
>> + new.inuse -= free_delta;
>> + set_freepointer(s, freelist_tail, old.freelist);
>> + new.freelist = freelist;
>> + } else {
>> + new.freelist = old.freelist;
>> + }
>> + } while (!slab_update_freelist(s, slab,
>> + old.freelist, old.counters,
>> + new.freelist, new.counters,
>> + "unfreezing slab"));
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Stage three: Manipulate the slab list based on the updated state.
>> + */
>
> deactivate_slab() might unconsciously put empty slabs into partial list, like:
>
> deactivate_slab() __slab_free()
> cmpxchg(), slab's not empty
> cmpxchg(), slab's empty
> and unfrozen
> spin_lock(&n->list_lock)
> (slab's empty but not
> on partial list,
>
> spin_unlock(&n->list_lock) and return)
> spin_lock(&n->list_lock)
> put slab into partial list
> spin_unlock(&n->list_lock)
>
> IMHO it should be fine in the real world, but just wanted to
> mention as it doesn't seem to be intentional.
I've noticed it too during review, but then realized it's not a new
behavior, same thing could happen with deactivate_slab() already before the
series. Free slabs on partial list are supported, we even keep some
intentionally as long as "n->nr_partial < s->min_partial" (and that check is
racy too), so no need to try making this more strict.
> Otherwise it looks good to me!
Good enough for a reviewed-by? :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-04 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-02 3:23 [PATCH v5 0/9] slub: Delay freezing of CPU partial slabs chengming.zhou
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 1/9] slub: Reflow ___slab_alloc() chengming.zhou
2023-11-22 0:26 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 2/9] slub: Change get_partial() interfaces to return slab chengming.zhou
2023-11-22 1:09 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 3/9] slub: Keep track of whether slub is on the per-node partial list chengming.zhou
2023-11-22 1:21 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 4/9] slub: Prepare __slab_free() for unfrozen partial slab out of node " chengming.zhou
2023-12-03 6:01 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 5/9] slub: Introduce freeze_slab() chengming.zhou
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 6/9] slub: Delay freezing of partial slabs chengming.zhou
2023-11-14 5:44 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-20 18:49 ` Mark Brown
2023-11-21 0:58 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-11-21 1:29 ` Mark Brown
2023-11-21 15:47 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-11-21 18:21 ` Mark Brown
2023-11-22 8:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-11-22 9:37 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-11-22 11:27 ` Mark Brown
2023-11-22 11:35 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-11-22 11:40 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-11-22 11:54 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-11-22 13:19 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-11-22 14:28 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-11-22 14:32 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-12-03 6:53 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-12-03 10:15 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-12-04 16:58 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 7/9] slub: Optimize deactivate_slab() chengming.zhou
2023-12-03 9:23 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-12-03 10:26 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-12-03 11:19 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-12-03 11:47 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-12-04 17:55 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2023-12-05 0:20 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 8/9] slub: Rename all *unfreeze_partials* functions to *put_partials* chengming.zhou
2023-12-03 9:27 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH v5 9/9] slub: Update frozen slabs documentations in the source chengming.zhou
2023-12-03 9:47 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-12-04 21:41 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2023-12-05 6:06 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-12-05 9:39 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-11-13 8:36 ` [PATCH v5 0/9] slub: Delay freezing of CPU partial slabs Vlastimil Babka
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=93dcdf0c-336b-cb20-d646-7a48d872e08c@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=zhouchengming@bytedance.com \
/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