From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Vlad Buslov <vladbu@nvidia.com>,
Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@nvidia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Reviving the slab destructor to tackle the percpu allocator scalability problem
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 19:10:03 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aAtfe1-ncE_oxt9H@harry> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aAqHKWU2xFk2X2ZD@slm.duckdns.org>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 08:47:05AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> ...
> > Eighteen years later, Mateusz Guzik proposed [1] re-introducing a slab
> > constructor/destructor pair to mitigate the global serialization point
> > (pcpu_alloc_mutex) that occurs when each slab object allocates and frees
> > percpu memory during its lifetime.
> >
> > Consider mm_struct: it allocates two percpu regions (mm_cid and rss_stat),
> > so each allocate–free cycle requires two expensive acquire/release on
> > that mutex.
>
> When percpu allocator was first introduced, the use cases were a lot more
> limited, so the single mutex and expensive alloc/free paths weren't a
> problem. We keep using percpu memory for more and more things, and I always
> thought we'd eventually need a more sophisticated allocator something with
> object caching.
Yeah, when you first write an allocator, it's an overkill to make it
too scalable. But over time, as with other allocators, more users show up
that require a more sophisticated allocator.
> I don't exactly know what that should look like but maybe a
> simplified version of sl*b serving power of two sizes should do or maybe it
> needs to be smaller and more adaptive. We'd need to collect some data to
> decide which way to go.
I'm not sure what kind of data we need — maybe allocation size distributions,
or more profiling data on workloads that contend on percpu allocator's locks?
> Improving percpu allocator in general is obviously a heavier lift but that
> may be a better long-term direction.
Yeah, if that's doable. But until then I think it still makes sense to cache
it within slab objects, ...or probably even after improving the percpu
allocator? It's a still churn that's incurred during each object's lifetime
regardless. (Need some data to see if justifiable)
And, as Mateusz explained, the percpu allocator isn’t the only motivation
for the ctor/dtor pair. Other expensive serializations like pgd_lock and
percpu_counters_lock are other motivations to do this.
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-25 10:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-24 8:07 Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] mm/slab: refactor freelist shuffle Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] treewide, slab: allow slab constructor to return an error Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] mm/slab: revive the destructor feature in slab allocator Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] net/sched/act_api: use slab ctor/dtor to reduce contention on pcpu alloc Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] mm/percpu: allow (un)charging objects without alloc/free Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] lib/percpu_counter: allow (un)charging percpu counters " Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] kernel/fork: improve exec() throughput with slab ctor/dtor pair Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 9:29 ` [RFC PATCH 0/7] Reviving the slab destructor to tackle the percpu allocator scalability problem Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-24 9:58 ` Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 15:00 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-24 11:28 ` Pedro Falcato
2025-04-24 15:20 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-24 16:11 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-25 7:40 ` Harry Yoo
2025-04-25 10:12 ` Harry Yoo
2025-04-25 10:42 ` Pedro Falcato
2025-04-28 1:18 ` Harry Yoo
2025-04-30 19:49 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-05-12 11:00 ` Harry Yoo
2025-04-24 15:50 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2025-04-24 16:03 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-24 16:39 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2025-04-24 17:26 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-24 18:47 ` Tejun Heo
2025-04-25 10:10 ` Harry Yoo [this message]
2025-04-25 19:03 ` Tejun Heo
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=aAtfe1-ncE_oxt9H@harry \
--to=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=byungchul@sk.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=kliteyn@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=vladbu@nvidia.com \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.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