linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slab: NUMA kmem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4603CF5A.8040601@shadowen.org>
Date:	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:00:10 +0000
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC:	akpm@...l.org, Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de, manfred@...orfullife.com,
	christoph@...eter.com, pj@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: NUMA kmem_cache diet

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Some NUMA machines have a big MAX_NUMNODES (possibly 1024), but fewer
> possible nodes. This patch dynamically sizes the 'struct kmem_cache' to
> allocate only needed space.
> 
> I moved nodelists[] field at the end of struct kmem_cache, and use the
> following computation in kmem_cache_init()
> 
> cache_cache.buffer_size = offsetof(struct kmem_cache, nodelists) +
>                                 nr_node_ids * sizeof(struct kmem_list3 *);
> 
> 
> On my two nodes x86_64 machine, kmem_cache.obj_size is now 192 instead
> of 704
> (This is because on x86_64, MAX_NUMNODES is 64)
> 
> On bigger NUMA setups, this might reduce the gfporder of "cache_cache"

That is a dramatic size difference, and I seem to have 128 slabs wow.
I'll try and find some time to test this on some of our numa kit.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index abf46ae..b187618 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -389,7 +389,6 @@ struct kmem_cache {
>  	unsigned int buffer_size;
>  	u32 reciprocal_buffer_size;
>  /* 3) touched by every alloc & free from the backend */
> -	struct kmem_list3 *nodelists[MAX_NUMNODES];
>  
>  	unsigned int flags;		/* constant flags */
>  	unsigned int num;		/* # of objs per slab */
> @@ -444,6 +443,17 @@ #if DEBUG
>  	int obj_offset;
>  	int obj_size;
>  #endif
> +	/*
> +	 * We put nodelists[] at the end of kmem_cache, because we want to size
> +	 * this array to nr_node_ids slots instead of MAX_NUMNODES
> +	 * (see kmem_cache_init())
> +	 * We still use [MAX_NUMNODES] and not [1] or [0] because cache_cache
> +	 * is statically defined, so we reserve the max number of nodes.
> +	 */
> +	struct kmem_list3 *nodelists[MAX_NUMNODES];
> +	/*
> +	 * Do not add fields after nodelists[]
> +	 */
>  };
>  
>  #define CFLGS_OFF_SLAB		(0x80000000UL)
> @@ -678,9 +688,6 @@ static struct kmem_cache cache_cache = {
>  	.shared = 1,
>  	.buffer_size = sizeof(struct kmem_cache),
>  	.name = "kmem_cache",
> -#if DEBUG
> -	.obj_size = sizeof(struct kmem_cache),
> -#endif

Is there any reason to not initialise the .obj_size here?  You are
initialising both .buffer_size and .obj_size in kmem_cache_init anyhow
so I would expect either both or neither to be initialised in your new
scheme.  Doing only one seems very strange.

>  };
>  
>  #define BAD_ALIEN_MAGIC 0x01020304ul
> @@ -1437,6 +1444,15 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
>  	cache_cache.array[smp_processor_id()] = &initarray_cache.cache;
>  	cache_cache.nodelists[node] = &initkmem_list3[CACHE_CACHE];
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * struct kmem_cache size depends on nr_node_ids, which
> +	 * can be less than MAX_NUMNODES.
> +	 */
> +	cache_cache.buffer_size = offsetof(struct kmem_cache, nodelists) +
> +				 nr_node_ids * sizeof(struct kmem_list3 *);
> +#if DEBUG
> +	cache_cache.obj_size = cache_cache.buffer_size;
> +#endif
>  	cache_cache.buffer_size = ALIGN(cache_cache.buffer_size,
>  					cache_line_size());
>  	cache_cache.reciprocal_buffer_size =

-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/