Re: [PATCH] slub: avoid list_lock contention from __refill_objects_any()

[Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 11:39:04AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/29/26 10:30, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 05:21:21PM +0800, Hao Li wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 10:07:57AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> > Kernel test robot has reported a regression in the patch "slab: refill
> >> > sheaves from all nodes". When taken in isolation like this, there is
> >> > indeed a tradeoff - we prefer to use remote objects prior to allocating
> >> > new local slabs. It is replicating a behavior that existed before
> >> > sheaves for replenishing cpu (partial) slabs - now called
> >> > get_from_any_partial() to allocate a single object.
> >> > 
> >> > So the possibility of allocating remote objects is intended even if
> >> > remote accesses are then slower. But the profiles in the report also
> >> > suggested a contention on the list_lock spinlock. And that's something
> >> > we can try to avoid without much tradeoff - if someone else has the
> >> > spin_lock, it's more likely they are allocating from the node than
> >> > freeing to it, so we can skip it even if it means allocating a new local
> >> > slab - contributing to that lock's contention isn't worth it. It should
> >> > not result in partial slabs accumulating on the remote node.
> >> > 
> >> > Thus add an allow_spin parameter to __refill_objects_node() and
> >> > get_partial_node_bulk() to make the attempts from __refill_objects_any()
> >> > use only a trylock.
> >> > 
> >> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> >> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202601132136.77efd6d7-lkp@intel.com
> >> > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> >> 
> >> In my testing, this patch improved performance by:
> >> 
> >> will-it-scale.64.processes +14.2%
> >> will-it-scale.128.processes +9.6%
> >> will-it-scale.192.processes +10.8%
> >> will-it-scale.per_process_ops +11.6%
> >>
> >> Tested-by: Hao Li <hao.li@linux.dev>
> > 
> > I wonder if using spin_is_contended() or spin_is_locked()
> > would be better than trylock by avoiding an atomic operation?
> 
> I checked and found that spin_trylock() itself implements a non-atomic check
> before the atomic. So adding a spin_is_locked() would only help the caller
> bail out a bit faster, but this is not a fastpath. It wouldn't help the
> cache coherency traffic, AFAIU.

I looked at qspinlock version of spin_trylock() and you're right :)
I just assumed it will always do a CAS but it's not the case!

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon