[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8cff8994-28a3-4a7e-8a6e-217c4da49ca1@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:44:29 +0800
From: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>
To: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Cc: cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] slub: Delay freezing of CPU partial slabs
On 2023/10/18 14:34, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:45 AM <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev> wrote:
>> 4. Testing
>> ==========
>> We just did some simple testing on a server with 128 CPUs (2 nodes) to
>> compare performance for now.
>>
>> - perf bench sched messaging -g 5 -t -l 100000
>> baseline RFC
>> 7.042s 6.966s
>> 7.022s 7.045s
>> 7.054s 6.985s
>>
>> - stress-ng --rawpkt 128 --rawpkt-ops 100000000
>> baseline RFC
>> 2.42s 2.15s
>> 2.45s 2.16s
>> 2.44s 2.17s
>>
>> It shows above there is about 10% improvement on stress-ng rawpkt
>> testcase, although no much improvement on perf sched bench testcase.
>>
>> Thanks for any comment and code review!
>
> Hi Chengming, this is the kerneltesting.org test report for your patch series.
>
> I applied this series on my slab-experimental tree [1] for testing,
> and I observed several kernel panics [2] [3] [4] on kernels without
> CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL.
>
> To verify that this series caused kernel panics, I tested before and after
> applying it on Vlastimil's slab/for-next and yeah, this series was the cause.
>
> System is deadlocked on memory and the OOM-killer says there is a
> huge amount of slab memory. So maybe there is a memory leak or it makes
> slab memory grow unboundedly?
Thanks for the testing!
I can reproduce the OOM locally without CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL.
I made a quick fix below (will need to get another better fix). The root
cause is in patch-4, which wrongly put some partial slabs onto the CPU
partial list even without CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL. So these partial slabs
are leaked.
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index d58eaf8447fd..b7ba6c008122 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -2339,12 +2339,12 @@ static void *get_partial_node(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n,
}
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL
remove_partial(n, slab);
put_cpu_partial(s, slab, 0);
stat(s, CPU_PARTIAL_NODE);
partial_slabs++;
-#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL
if (!kmem_cache_has_cpu_partial(s)
|| partial_slabs > s->cpu_partial_slabs / 2)
break;
>
> [1] https://git.kerneltesting.org/slab-experimental/
> [2] https://lava.kerneltesting.org/scheduler/job/127#bottom
> [3] https://lava.kerneltesting.org/scheduler/job/131#bottom
> [4] https://lava.kerneltesting.org/scheduler/job/134#bottom
>
>>
>> Chengming Zhou (5):
>> slub: Introduce on_partial()
>> slub: Don't manipulate slab list when used by cpu
>> slub: Optimize deactivate_slab()
>> slub: Don't freeze slabs for cpu partial
>> slub: Introduce get_cpu_partial()
>>
>> mm/slab.h | 2 +-
>> mm/slub.c | 257 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>> 2 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.40.1
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists