[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200812221426.09723.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:26:09 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: per-cpu stats in block device: overkill?
On Monday 22 December 2008 12:25:54 Tejun Heo wrote:
> I'm working on local counter (local_t) allocator which is used to
> replace percpu allocation in percpu_counter and used as basis for
> percpu_ref which replaces module ref counting and will be used to
> simplify block/char lifetime rules.
Hi Tejun,
Interesting! Thanks to Christoph's dynamic percpu efforts, I've
been revising efforts to make alloc_percpu use the same efficient
mechanism that static percpu vars use. We actually have this code
already, tucked away in module.c.
This work is basically complete; the step I started this morning
is to remove the per_cpu__ prefix hackery from the per-cpu ops (in favour
of sparse annotations). This leads to cpu_local_inc et. al. being usable
for alloc_percpu-created percpu vars, not just static ones.
> The local counter allocator allocates per-cpu pages and the space
> overhead is minimal. If per-cpu stats in genhd is necessary, I think
> converting it to percpu local counter allocation should do it.
Interesting; an allyesconfig boot uses 194 per-cpu allocs from
lib/percpu_counter.c at the moment. The module.c allocator is fairly space
efficient: 4 bytes per "block" (ie. each allocation or hole) but slow,
which I figure is OK. Packing is good though.
> BTW, why make percpu area static?
Good question. Archs use a simple offset for per-cpu areas: some hold
this in a register (eg. %fs for x86-32). This means that the layout must be
"congruent" (ie. have the same inter-cpu spacing) if we allocate a new
per-cpu area (hard for non-NUMA).
For 5 years I waited for this to be fixed, and avoided exposing the per-cpu
core, and the alloc_percpu stuff was a standin implementation. But Christoph
L. showed that even with the size limit, there are numerous places which want
small per-cpu allocations which are optimally accessed, so I restarted work.
See Message-Id: <20081117132630.33F09DDDF5@...abs.org> "[PATCH 1/7] Improve
alloc_percpu: make the per cpu reserve configurable and larger." and thread.
In addition, Mathieu and I have been discussing local_t: it's wandered
off its original purpose and we're debating what to do about it. See
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812150823370.18692@...dalf.stny.rr.com>
"local_add_return" and thread.
I look forward to always-cogent your thoughts on these issues!
Rusty.
--
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