[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqGUb0s5Jw5EgKne@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 14:34:23 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, smuchun@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: slab: optimize memcg_slab_free_hook()
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 08:30:44PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> Most callers of memcg_slab_free_hook() already know the slab, which could
> be passed to memcg_slab_free_hook() directly to reduce the overhead of an
> another call of virt_to_slab(). For bulk freeing of objects, the call of
> slab_objcgs() in the loop in memcg_slab_free_hook() is redundant as well.
> Rework memcg_slab_free_hook() and build_detached_freelist() to reduce
> those unnecessary overhead and make memcg_slab_free_hook() can handle bulk
> freeing in slab_free().
>
> Move the calling site of memcg_slab_free_hook() from do_slab_free() to
> slab_free() for slub to make the code clearer since the logic is weird
> (e.g. the caller need to judge whether it needs to call
> memcg_slab_free_hook()). It is easy to make mistakes like missing calling
> of memcg_slab_free_hook() like fixes of:
>
> commit d1b2cf6cb84a ("mm: memcg/slab: uncharge during kmem_cache_free_bulk()")
> commit ae085d7f9365 ("mm: kfence: fix missing objcg housekeeping for SLAB")
>
> This optimization is mainly for bulk objects freeing. The following numbers
> is shown for 16-object freeing.
>
> before after
> kmem_cache_free_bulk: ~430 ns ~400 ns
>
> The overhead is reduced by about 7% for 16-object freeing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Hi Vlastimil,
Wolud you mind picking it up? I did not see this patch on the
slab tree.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists