From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: limit count of partial slabs scanned to gather statistics
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 14:19:51 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2005041411020.224786@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <158860845968.33385.4165926113074799048.stgit@buzz>
On Mon, 4 May 2020, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> To get exact count of free and used objects slub have to scan list of
> partial slabs. This may take at long time. Scanning holds spinlock and
> blocks allocations which move partial slabs to per-cpu lists and back.
>
> Example found in the wild:
>
> # cat /sys/kernel/slab/dentry/partial
> 14478538 N0=7329569 N1=7148969
> # time cat /sys/kernel/slab/dentry/objects
> 286225471 N0=136967768 N1=149257703
>
> real 0m1.722s
> user 0m0.001s
> sys 0m1.721s
>
> The same problem in slab was addressed in commit f728b0a5d72a ("mm, slab:
> faster active and free stats") by adding more kmem cache statistics.
> For slub same approach requires atomic op on fast path when object frees.
>
> Let's simply limit count of scanned slabs and print warning.
> Limit set in /sys/module/slub/parameters/max_partial_to_count.
> Default is 10000 which should be enough for most sane cases.
>
> Return linear approximation if list of partials is longer than limit.
> Nobody should notice difference.
>
Hi Konstantin,
Do you only exhibit this on slub for SO_ALL|SO_OBJECTS? I notice the
timing in the changelog is only looking at "objects" and not "partial".
If so, it seems this is also a problem for get_slabinfo() since it also
uses the count_free() callback for count_partial().
Concern would be that the kernel has now drastically changed a statistic
that it exports to userspace. There was some discussion about this back
in 2016[*] and one idea was that slabinfo would truncate its scanning and
append a '+' to the end of the value to indicate it exceeds the max, i.e.
10000+. I think that '+' actually caused the problem itself for userspace
processes.
I think the patch is too far reaching, however, since it impacts all
count_partial() counting and not only for the case cited in the changelog.
Are there examples for things other than the count_free() callback?
[*] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/708427/
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
> ---
> mm/slub.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 9bf44955c4f1..86a366f7acb6 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -2407,16 +2407,29 @@ static inline unsigned long node_nr_objs(struct kmem_cache_node *n)
> #endif /* CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG */
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG) || defined(CONFIG_SYSFS)
> +
> +static unsigned long max_partial_to_count __read_mostly = 10000;
> +module_param(max_partial_to_count, ulong, 0644);
> +
> static unsigned long count_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> int (*get_count)(struct page *))
> {
> + unsigned long counted = 0;
> unsigned long flags;
> unsigned long x = 0;
> struct page *page;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> - list_for_each_entry(page, &n->partial, slab_list)
> + list_for_each_entry(page, &n->partial, slab_list) {
> x += get_count(page);
> +
> + if (++counted > max_partial_to_count) {
> + pr_warn_once("SLUB: too much partial slabs to count all objects, increase max_partial_to_count.\n");
> + /* Approximate total count of objects */
> + x = mult_frac(x, n->nr_partial, counted);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> return x;
> }
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-04 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-04 16:07 Konstantin Khlebnikov
2020-05-04 19:56 ` Andrew Morton
2020-05-05 5:46 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2020-05-08 3:18 ` Christopher Lameter
2020-05-04 21:19 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2020-05-05 6:20 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2020-05-06 11:56 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-05-07 5:25 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2020-05-07 14:12 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-05-06 19:06 ` Qian Cai
2020-05-07 3:01 ` Qian Cai
2020-05-07 3:20 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-05-07 5:15 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2020-05-07 18:24 ` 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.2.22.394.2005041411020.224786@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru \
--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