Re: [PATCH v7 08/10] mm: rework non-root kmem_cache lifecycle management

[Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:18 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> Currently each charged slab page holds a reference to the cgroup to
> which it's charged. Kmem_caches are held by the memcg and are released
> all together with the memory cgroup. It means that none of kmem_caches
> are released unless at least one reference to the memcg exists, which
> is very far from optimal.
>
> Let's rework it in a way that allows releasing individual kmem_caches
> as soon as the cgroup is offline, the kmem_cache is empty and there
> are no pending allocations.
>
> To make it possible, let's introduce a new percpu refcounter for
> non-root kmem caches. The counter is initialized to the percpu mode,
> and is switched to the atomic mode during kmem_cache deactivation. The
> counter is bumped for every charged page and also for every running
> allocation. So the kmem_cache can't be released unless all allocations
> complete.
>
> To shutdown non-active empty kmem_caches, let's reuse the work queue,
> previously used for the kmem_cache deactivation. Once the reference
> counter reaches 0, let's schedule an asynchronous kmem_cache release.
>
> * I used the following simple approach to test the performance
> (stolen from another patchset by T. Harding):
>
>     time find / -name fname-no-exist
>     echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>     repeat 10 times
>
> Results:
>
>         orig            patched
>
> real    0m1.455s        real    0m1.355s
> user    0m0.206s        user    0m0.219s
> sys     0m0.855s        sys     0m0.807s
>
> real    0m1.487s        real    0m1.699s
> user    0m0.221s        user    0m0.256s
> sys     0m0.806s        sys     0m0.948s
>
> real    0m1.515s        real    0m1.505s
> user    0m0.183s        user    0m0.215s
> sys     0m0.876s        sys     0m0.858s
>
> real    0m1.291s        real    0m1.380s
> user    0m0.193s        user    0m0.198s
> sys     0m0.843s        sys     0m0.786s
>
> real    0m1.364s        real    0m1.374s
> user    0m0.180s        user    0m0.182s
> sys     0m0.868s        sys     0m0.806s
>
> real    0m1.352s        real    0m1.312s
> user    0m0.201s        user    0m0.212s
> sys     0m0.820s        sys     0m0.761s
>
> real    0m1.302s        real    0m1.349s
> user    0m0.205s        user    0m0.203s
> sys     0m0.803s        sys     0m0.792s
>
> real    0m1.334s        real    0m1.301s
> user    0m0.194s        user    0m0.201s
> sys     0m0.806s        sys     0m0.779s
>
> real    0m1.426s        real    0m1.434s
> user    0m0.216s        user    0m0.181s
> sys     0m0.824s        sys     0m0.864s
>
> real    0m1.350s        real    0m1.295s
> user    0m0.200s        user    0m0.190s
> sys     0m0.842s        sys     0m0.811s
>
> So it looks like the difference is not noticeable in this test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>