[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f0355157-d70a-893b-5b85-b8cb90e03361@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 18:04:25 +0800
From: xunlei <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...il.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Wen Yang <wenyang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mm/slub: Fix count_partial() problem
On 2020/8/20 下午10:02, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:18 PM Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> v1->v2:
>> - Improved changelog and variable naming for PATCH 1~2.
>> - PATCH3 adds per-cpu counter to avoid performance regression
>> in concurrent __slab_free().
>>
>> [Testing]
>> On my 32-cpu 2-socket physical machine:
>> Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v2 @ 2.60GHz
>> perf stat --null --repeat 10 -- hackbench 20 thread 20000
>>
>> == original, no patched
>> 19.211637055 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.57% )
>>
>> == patched with patch1~2
>> Performance counter stats for 'hackbench 20 thread 20000' (10 runs):
>>
>> 21.731833146 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.17% )
>>
>> == patched with patch1~3
>> Performance counter stats for 'hackbench 20 thread 20000' (10 runs):
>>
>> 19.112106847 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.64% )
>>
>>
>> Xunlei Pang (3):
>> mm/slub: Introduce two counters for partial objects
>> mm/slub: Get rid of count_partial()
>> mm/slub: Use percpu partial free counter
>>
>> mm/slab.h | 2 +
>> mm/slub.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> 2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> We probably need to wrap the counters under CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG because
> AFAICT all the code that uses them is also wrapped under it.
/sys/kernel/slab/***/partial sysfs also uses it, I can wrap it with
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG or CONFIG_SYSFS for backward compatibility.
>
> An alternative approach for this patch would be to somehow make the
> lock in count_partial() more granular, but I don't know how feasible
> that actually is.
>
> Anyway, I am OK with this approach:
>
> Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Thanks!
>
> You still need to convince Christoph, though, because he had
> objections over this approach.
Christoph, what do you think, or any better suggestion to address this
*in production* issue?
>
> - Pekka
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists