| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071108145044.GB2591@skynet.ie>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:50:44 +0000
From: mel@...net.ie (Mel Gorman)
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundatin.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 02/23] SLUB: Rename NUMA defrag_ratio to remote_node_defrag_ratio
On (06/11/07 17:11), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:
> We need the defrag ratio for the non NUMA situation now. The NUMA defrag works
> by allocating objects from partial slabs on remote nodes. Rename it to
>
> remote_node_defrag_ratio
>
I'm not too keen on the defrag name here largely because I cannot tell what
it has to do with defragmention or ratios. It's really about working out
when it is better to pack objects into a remote slab than reclaim objects
from a local slab, right? It's also not clear what it is a ratio of what to
what. I thought it might be clock cycles but that isn't very clear either.
If we are renaming this can it be something like remote_packing_cost_limit ?
> to be clear about this.
>
> [This patch is already in mm]
>
> Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> ---
> include/linux/slub_def.h | 5 ++++-
> mm/slub.c | 17 +++++++++--------
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/slub_def.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/slub_def.h 2007-11-06 12:34:13.000000000 -0800
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/slub_def.h 2007-11-06 12:36:28.000000000 -0800
> @@ -60,7 +60,10 @@ struct kmem_cache {
> #endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> - int defrag_ratio;
> + /*
> + * Defragmentation by allocating from a remote node.
> + */
> + int remote_node_defrag_ratio;
How about
/*
* When packing objects into slabs, it may become necessary to
* reclaim objects on a local slab or allocate from a remote node.
* The remote_packing_cost_limit is the maximum cost of remote
* accesses that should be paid before it becomes worthwhile to
* reclaim instead
*/
int remote_packing_cost_limit;
?
I still don't see what get_cycles() has to do with anything but this
could be because my understanding of SLUB sucks.
> struct kmem_cache_node *node[MAX_NUMNODES];
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c 2007-11-06 12:36:16.000000000 -0800
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c 2007-11-06 12:37:25.000000000 -0800
> @@ -1345,7 +1345,8 @@ static unsigned long get_any_partial(str
> * expensive if we do it every time we are trying to find a slab
> * with available objects.
> */
> - if (!s->defrag_ratio || get_cycles() % 1024 > s->defrag_ratio)
> + if (!s->remote_node_defrag_ratio ||
> + get_cycles() % 1024 > s->remote_node_defrag_ratio)
I cannot figure out what the number of cycles currently showing on the TSC
have to do with a ratio :(. I could semi-understand if we were counting up
how many cycles were being spent trying to pack objects but that does not
appear to be the case. The comment didn't help a whole lot either. It felt
like a cost for packing, not a ratio
> return 0;
>
> zonelist = &NODE_DATA(slab_node(current->mempolicy))
> @@ -2363,7 +2364,7 @@ static int kmem_cache_open(struct kmem_c
>
> s->refcount = 1;
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> - s->defrag_ratio = 100;
> + s->remote_node_defrag_ratio = 100;
> #endif
> if (!init_kmem_cache_nodes(s, gfpflags & ~SLUB_DMA))
> goto error;
> @@ -4005,21 +4006,21 @@ static ssize_t free_calls_show(struct km
> SLAB_ATTR_RO(free_calls);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> -static ssize_t defrag_ratio_show(struct kmem_cache *s, char *buf)
> +static ssize_t remote_node_defrag_ratio_show(struct kmem_cache *s, char *buf)
> {
> - return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", s->defrag_ratio / 10);
> + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", s->remote_node_defrag_ratio / 10);
> }
>
> -static ssize_t defrag_ratio_store(struct kmem_cache *s,
> +static ssize_t remote_node_defrag_ratio_store(struct kmem_cache *s,
> const char *buf, size_t length)
> {
> int n = simple_strtoul(buf, NULL, 10);
>
> if (n < 100)
> - s->defrag_ratio = n * 10;
> + s->remote_node_defrag_ratio = n * 10;
> return length;
> }
> -SLAB_ATTR(defrag_ratio);
> +SLAB_ATTR(remote_node_defrag_ratio);
> #endif
>
> static struct attribute * slab_attrs[] = {
> @@ -4050,7 +4051,7 @@ static struct attribute * slab_attrs[] =
> &cache_dma_attr.attr,
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> - &defrag_ratio_attr.attr,
> + &remote_node_defrag_ratio_attr.attr,
> #endif
> NULL
> };
>
> --
>
--
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
-
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