From: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] slub: remove one code path and reduce lock contention in __slab_free()
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 01:06:57 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4MjqETWfZuyzJUMF+5q-aGgZ20gKpgWSvFTYWp-LqdrHA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1345042960-6287-2-git-send-email-js1304@gmail.com>
2012/8/16 Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>:
> When we try to free object, there is some of case that we need
> to take a node lock. This is the necessary step for preventing a race.
> After taking a lock, then we try to cmpxchg_double_slab().
> But, there is a possible scenario that cmpxchg_double_slab() is failed
> with taking a lock. Following example explains it.
>
> CPU A CPU B
> need lock
> ... need lock
> ... lock!!
> lock..but spin free success
> spin... unlock
> lock!!
> free fail
>
> In this case, retry with taking a lock is occured in CPU A.
> I think that in this case for CPU A,
> "release a lock first, and re-take a lock if necessary" is preferable way.
>
> There are two reasons for this.
>
> First, this makes __slab_free()'s logic somehow simple.
> With this patch, 'was_frozen = 1' is "always" handled without taking a lock.
> So we can remove one code path.
>
> Second, it may reduce lock contention.
> When we do retrying, status of slab is already changed,
> so we don't need a lock anymore in almost every case.
> "release a lock first, and re-take a lock if necessary" policy is
> helpful to this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index ca778e5..efce427 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -2421,7 +2421,6 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
> void *prior;
> void **object = (void *)x;
> int was_frozen;
> - int inuse;
> struct page new;
> unsigned long counters;
> struct kmem_cache_node *n = NULL;
> @@ -2433,13 +2432,17 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
> return;
>
> do {
> + if (unlikely(n)) {
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> + n = NULL;
> + }
> prior = page->freelist;
> counters = page->counters;
> set_freepointer(s, object, prior);
> new.counters = counters;
> was_frozen = new.frozen;
> new.inuse--;
> - if ((!new.inuse || !prior) && !was_frozen && !n) {
> + if ((!new.inuse || !prior) && !was_frozen) {
>
> if (!kmem_cache_debug(s) && !prior)
>
> @@ -2464,7 +2467,6 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
>
> }
> }
> - inuse = new.inuse;
>
> } while (!cmpxchg_double_slab(s, page,
> prior, counters,
> @@ -2490,25 +2492,17 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
> return;
> }
>
> + if (unlikely(!new.inuse && n->nr_partial > s->min_partial))
> + goto slab_empty;
> +
> /*
> - * was_frozen may have been set after we acquired the list_lock in
> - * an earlier loop. So we need to check it here again.
> + * Objects left in the slab. If it was not on the partial list before
> + * then add it.
> */
> - if (was_frozen)
> - stat(s, FREE_FROZEN);
> - else {
> - if (unlikely(!inuse && n->nr_partial > s->min_partial))
> - goto slab_empty;
> -
> - /*
> - * Objects left in the slab. If it was not on the partial list before
> - * then add it.
> - */
> - if (unlikely(!prior)) {
> - remove_full(s, page);
> - add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL);
> - stat(s, FREE_ADD_PARTIAL);
> - }
> + if (kmem_cache_debug(s) && unlikely(!prior)) {
> + remove_full(s, page);
> + add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL);
> + stat(s, FREE_ADD_PARTIAL);
> }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> return;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
Hello, Pekka.
Could you review this patch and comment it, please?
--
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:[~2012-08-24 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-15 15:02 [PATCH 1/2] slub: reduce failure of this_cpu_cmpxchg in put_cpu_partial() after unfreezing Joonsoo Kim
2012-08-15 15:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] slub: remove one code path and reduce lock contention in __slab_free() Joonsoo Kim
2012-08-24 16:06 ` JoonSoo Kim [this message]
2012-09-06 18:08 ` JoonSoo Kim
2012-10-19 7:20 ` Pekka Enberg
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=CAAmzW4MjqETWfZuyzJUMF+5q-aGgZ20gKpgWSvFTYWp-LqdrHA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=cl@linux.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