From: Hao Li <hao.li@linux.dev>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: avoid list_lock contention from __refill_objects_any()
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:21:21 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <r4sorjw4p62mk2pvnjfrfx2w3zmwcz5yuflmcewll3jsmpju42@dniauu6pkm6j> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260129-b4-refill_any_trylock-v1-1-de7420b25840@suse.cz>
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>
--
Thanks
Hao
> ---
> To be applied on top of:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vbabka/slab.git/log/?h=slab/for-7.0/sheaves
> ---
> mm/slub.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index eb1f52a79999..ca3db3ae1afb 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3378,7 +3378,8 @@ static inline bool pfmemalloc_match(struct slab *slab, gfp_t gfpflags);
>
> static bool get_partial_node_bulk(struct kmem_cache *s,
> struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> - struct partial_bulk_context *pc)
> + struct partial_bulk_context *pc,
> + bool allow_spin)
> {
> struct slab *slab, *slab2;
> unsigned int total_free = 0;
> @@ -3390,7 +3391,10 @@ static bool get_partial_node_bulk(struct kmem_cache *s,
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pc->slabs);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> + if (allow_spin)
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> + else if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags))
> + return false;
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(slab, slab2, &n->partial, slab_list) {
> struct freelist_counters flc;
> @@ -6544,7 +6548,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free_bulk);
>
> static unsigned int
> __refill_objects_node(struct kmem_cache *s, void **p, gfp_t gfp, unsigned int min,
> - unsigned int max, struct kmem_cache_node *n)
> + unsigned int max, struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> + bool allow_spin)
> {
> struct partial_bulk_context pc;
> struct slab *slab, *slab2;
> @@ -6556,7 +6561,7 @@ __refill_objects_node(struct kmem_cache *s, void **p, gfp_t gfp, unsigned int mi
> pc.min_objects = min;
> pc.max_objects = max;
>
> - if (!get_partial_node_bulk(s, n, &pc))
> + if (!get_partial_node_bulk(s, n, &pc, allow_spin))
> return 0;
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(slab, slab2, &pc.slabs, slab_list) {
> @@ -6650,7 +6655,8 @@ __refill_objects_any(struct kmem_cache *s, void **p, gfp_t gfp, unsigned int min
> n->nr_partial <= s->min_partial)
> continue;
>
> - r = __refill_objects_node(s, p, gfp, min, max, n);
> + r = __refill_objects_node(s, p, gfp, min, max, n,
> + /* allow_spin = */ false);
> refilled += r;
>
> if (r >= min) {
> @@ -6691,7 +6697,8 @@ refill_objects(struct kmem_cache *s, void **p, gfp_t gfp, unsigned int min,
> return 0;
>
> refilled = __refill_objects_node(s, p, gfp, min, max,
> - get_node(s, local_node));
> + get_node(s, local_node),
> + /* allow_spin = */ true);
> if (refilled >= min)
> return refilled;
>
>
> ---
> base-commit: 6f1912181ddfcf851a6670b4fa9c7dfdaf3ed46d
> change-id: 20260129-b4-refill_any_trylock-160a31224193
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-29 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-29 9:07 Vlastimil Babka
2026-01-29 9:21 ` Hao Li [this message]
2026-01-29 9:30 ` Harry Yoo
2026-01-29 10:39 ` Vlastimil Babka
2026-01-29 10:56 ` Harry Yoo
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=r4sorjw4p62mk2pvnjfrfx2w3zmwcz5yuflmcewll3jsmpju42@dniauu6pkm6j \
--to=hao.li@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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