[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070827203913.GA7416@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:39:13 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLUB use cmpxchg_local
* Christoph Lameter (clameter@....com) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > * Christoph Lameter (clameter@....com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, if the fast path can be done with a preempt off, it might be doable
> > > > to suffer the slow path with a per cpu lock like that.
> > >
> > > Sadly the cmpxchg_local requires local per cpu data access. Isnt there
> > > some way to make this less expensive on RT? Acessing cpu local memory is
> > > really good for performance on NUMA since the data is optimally placed and
> > > one can avoid/reduce locking if the process stays tied to the processor.
> > >
> >
> > On the slow path, in slab_new, we already have to reenable interrupts
> > because we can sleep. If we make sure that whenever we return to an irq
> > disable code path we take the current per-cpu data structure again, can
> > we make the preempt-disable/irq-disabled code paths O(1) ?
>
> Not sure exactly what you are getting at?
> This would mean running __alloc_pages tied to one processor even though
> waiting is possible?
>
Not exactly. What I propose is:
- Running slab_alloc and slab_free fast paths in preempt_disable
context, using cmpxchg_local.
- Running slab_alloc and slab_free slow paths with irqs disabled.
- Running __alloc_pages in preemptible context, not tied to any CPU.
In this scheme, calling __alloc_pages from slab_alloc would reenable
interrupts and potentially migrate us to a different CPU. We would
therefore have to get once again our per-cpu data structure once we get
back into irq disabled code, because we may be running on a different
CPU. This is actually what the __slab_alloc slow path does:
new_slab:
new = get_partial(s, gfpflags, node);
if (new) {
c->page = new;
goto load_freelist;
}
new = new_slab(s, gfpflags, node);
----> within new_slab, we can reenable interrupts for the
__slab_alloc call.
if (new) {
c = get_cpu_slab(s, smp_processor_id());
if (c->page) {
/*
* Someone else populated the cpu_slab while we
* enabled interrupts, or we have gotten scheduled
* on another cpu. The page may not be on the
* requested node even if __GFP_THISNODE was
* specified. So we need to recheck.
*/
if (node_match(c, node)) {
/*
* Current cpuslab is acceptable and we
* want the current one since its cache hot
*/
discard_slab(s, new);
slab_lock(c->page);
goto load_freelist;
}
/* New slab does not fit our expectations */
flush_slab(s, c);
}
slab_lock(new);
SetSlabFrozen(new);
c->page = new;
goto load_freelist;
So the idea would be to split the code in O(1)
preempt_disable/irq_disable sections and to enable interrupt and check
for current per-cpu data structure when re-entering in irq disabled
code.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists