linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	hughd@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 19:43:35 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108011939180.15596@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJsxLGyC4=WwGu7kUTwVKF3AxhfWjBg2sZu=W08RtVMHKk8eQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1960 bytes --]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Looking at the data (in slightly reorganized form):
> 
>   alloc
>   =====
> 
>     16 threads:
> 
>       cache           alloc_fastpath          alloc_slowpath
>       kmalloc-256     4263275 (91.1%)         417445   (8.9%)
>       kmalloc-1024    4636360 (99.1%)         42091    (0.9%)
>       kmalloc-4096    2570312 (54.4%)         2155946  (45.6%)
> 
>     160 threads:
> 
>       cache           alloc_fastpath          alloc_slowpath
>       kmalloc-256     10937512 (62.8%)        6490753  (37.2%)
>       kmalloc-1024    17121172 (98.3%)        303547   (1.7%)
>       kmalloc-4096    5526281  (31.7%)        11910454 (68.3%)
> 
>   free
>   ====
> 
>     16 threads:
> 
>       cache           free_fastpath           free_slowpath
>       kmalloc-256     210115   (4.5%)         4470604  (95.5%)
>       kmalloc-1024    3579699  (76.5%)        1098764  (23.5%)
>       kmalloc-4096    67616    (1.4%)         4658678  (98.6%)
> 
>     160 threads:
>       cache           free_fastpath           free_slowpath
>       kmalloc-256     15469    (0.1%)         17412798 (99.9%)
>       kmalloc-1024    11604742 (66.6%)        5819973  (33.4%)
>       kmalloc-4096    14848    (0.1%)         17421902 (99.9%)
> 
> it's pretty sad to see how SLUB alloc fastpath utilization drops so
> dramatically. Free fastpath utilization isn't all that great with 160
> threads either but it seems to me that most of the performance
> regression compared to SLAB still comes from the alloc paths.
> 

It's the opposite, the cumulative effects of the free slowpath is more 
costly in terms of latency than the alloc slowpath because it occurs at a 
greater frequency; the pattern that I described as "slab thrashing" before 
causes a single free to a full slab, manipulation to get it back on the 
partial list, then the alloc slowpath grabs it for a single allocation, 
and requires another partial slab on the next alloc.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-08-02  2:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-07-28 22:47 Pekka Enberg
2011-07-29 15:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-29 23:18   ` Andi Kleen
2011-07-30  6:33     ` Eric Dumazet
2011-07-31 18:50   ` David Rientjes
2011-07-31 20:24     ` David Rientjes
2011-07-31 20:45       ` Pekka Enberg
2011-07-31 21:55         ` David Rientjes
2011-08-01  5:08           ` Pekka Enberg
2011-08-01 10:02             ` David Rientjes
2011-08-01 12:45               ` Pekka Enberg
2011-08-02  2:43                 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2011-08-01 12:06           ` Pekka Enberg
2011-08-01 15:55             ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-02  4:05             ` David Rientjes
2011-08-02 14:15               ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-02 16:24                 ` David Rientjes
2011-08-02 16:36                   ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-02 20:02                     ` David Rientjes
2011-08-03 14:09                       ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-08 20:04                         ` David Rientjes
2011-07-30 18:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-30 18:32   ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-31 17:39     ` Andi Kleen
2011-08-01  0:22       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-31 18:11     ` David Rientjes

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=alpine.DEB.2.00.1108011939180.15596@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
    --to=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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