Message-ID: <aQK0Bj8DL21WJ0gq@hyeyoo>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:40:38 +0900
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, andreyknvl@...il.com,
        cl@...ux.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, glider@...gle.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        muchun.song@...ux.dev, rientjes@...gle.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
        ryabinin.a.a@...il.com, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
        vincenzo.frascino@....com, yeoreum.yun@....com, tytso@....edu,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 6/7] mm/slab: save memory by allocating
 slabobj_ext array from leftover

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:37:27AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 1:00 AM Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 08:07:42PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 5:29 AM Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The leftover space in a slab is always smaller than s->size, and
> > > > kmem caches for large objects that are not power-of-two sizes tend to have
> > > > a greater amount of leftover space per slab. In some cases, the leftover
> > > > space is larger than the size of the slabobj_ext array for the slab.
> > > >
> > > > An excellent example of such a cache is ext4_inode_cache. On my system,
> > > > the object size is 1144, with a preferred order of 3, 28 objects per slab,
> > > > and 736 bytes of leftover space per slab.
> > > >
> > > > Since the size of the slabobj_ext array is only 224 bytes (w/o mem
> > > > profiling) or 448 bytes (w/ mem profiling) per slab, the entire array
> > > > fits within the leftover space.
> > > >
> > > > Allocate the slabobj_exts array from this unused space instead of using
> > > > kcalloc(), when it is large enough. The array is always allocated when
> > > > creating new slabs, because implementing lazy allocation correctly is
> > > > difficult without expensive synchronization.
> > > >
> > > > To avoid unnecessary overhead when MEMCG (with SLAB_ACCOUNT) and
> > > > MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING are not used for the cache, only allocate the
> > > > slabobj_ext array only when either of them are enabled when slabs are
> > > > created.
> > > >
> > > > [ MEMCG=y, MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING=n ]
> > > >
> > > > Before patch (creating 2M directories on ext4):
> > > >   Slab:            3575348 kB
> > > >   SReclaimable:    3137804 kB
> > > >   SUnreclaim:       437544 kB
> > > >
> > > > After patch (creating 2M directories on ext4):
> > > >   Slab:            3558236 kB
> > > >   SReclaimable:    3139268 kB
> > > >   SUnreclaim:       418968 kB (-18.14 MiB)
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy the memory savings!
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  mm/slub.c | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 142 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > > > index 13acc9437ef5..8101df5fdccf 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > > > +static inline bool obj_exts_in_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       unsigned long obj_exts;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!obj_exts_fit_within_slab_leftover(s, slab))
> > > > +               return false;
> > > > +
> > > > +       obj_exts = (unsigned long)slab_address(slab);
> > > > +       obj_exts += obj_exts_offset_in_slab(s, slab);
> > > > +       return obj_exts == slab_obj_exts(slab);
> > >
> > > You can check that slab_obj_exts(slab) is not NULL before making the
> > > above calculations.
> >
> > Did you mean this?
> >
> >   if (!slab_obj_exts(slab))
> >       return false;
> 
> Yes but you can store the returned value to reuse later in the last
> "return obj_exts == slab_obj_exts(slab);" expression.

Okay, will do.

> > If so, yes that makes sense.
> >
> > > > @@ -2185,6 +2311,11 @@ static inline void free_slab_obj_exts(struct slab *slab)
> > > >  {
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +static inline void alloc_slab_obj_exts_early(struct kmem_cache *s,
> > > > +                                                      struct slab *slab)
> > > > +{
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  #endif /* CONFIG_SLAB_OBJ_EXT */
> > > >
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
> > > > @@ -3155,7 +3286,9 @@ static inline bool shuffle_freelist(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab)
> > > >  static __always_inline void account_slab(struct slab *slab, int order,
> > > >                                          struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfp)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       if (memcg_kmem_online() && (s->flags & SLAB_ACCOUNT))
> > > > +       if (memcg_kmem_online() &&
> > > > +                       (s->flags & SLAB_ACCOUNT) &&
> > > > +                       !slab_obj_exts(slab))
> > > >                 alloc_slab_obj_exts(slab, s, gfp, true);
> > >
> > > Don't you need to add a check for !obj_exts_in_slab() inside
> > > alloc_slab_obj_exts() to avoid allocating slab->obj_exts?
> >
> > slab_obj_exts() should have returned a nonzero value
> > and then we don't call alloc_slab_obj_exts()?
> 
> Sorry, I mean that you would need to check
> obj_exts_fit_within_slab_leftover() inside alloc_slab_obj_exts() to
> avoid allocating the vector when obj_exts can fit inside the slab
> itself. This is because alloc_slab_obj_exts() can be called from other
> places as well. However, from your next comment, I realize that your
> intention might have been to keep those other callers intact and
> allocate the vector separately even if the obj_exts could have been
> squeezed inside the slab. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct!

> > > >         mod_node_page_state(slab_pgdat(slab), cache_vmstat_idx(s),
> > > > @@ -3219,9 +3352,6 @@ static struct slab *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > > >         slab->objects = oo_objects(oo);slab_obj_exts
> > > >         slab->inuse = 0;
> > > >         slab->frozen = 0;
> > > > -       init_slab_obj_exts(slab);
> > > > -
> > > > -       account_slab(slab, oo_order(oo), s, flags);
> > > >
> > > >         slab->slab_cache = s;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -3230,6 +3360,13 @@ static struct slab *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > > >         start = slab_address(slab);
> > > >
> > > >         setup_slab_debug(s, slab, start);
> > > > +       init_slab_obj_exts(slab);
> > > > +       /*
> > > > +        * Poison the slab before initializing the slabobj_ext array
> > > > +        * to prevent the array from being overwritten.
> > > > +        */
> > > > +       alloc_slab_obj_exts_early(s, slab);
> > > > +       account_slab(slab, oo_order(oo), s, flags);
> > >
> > >  alloc_slab_obj_exts() is called in 2 other places:
> > > 1. __memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook()
> > > 2. prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook()
> > >
> > > Don't you need alloc_slab_obj_exts_early() there as well?
> >
> > That's good point, and I thought it's difficult to address
> > concurrency problem without using a per-slab lock.
> >
> > Thread A                    Thread B
> > - sees slab->obj_exts == 0
> >                             - sees slab->obj_exts == 0
> >                             - allocates the vector from unused space
> >                               and initializes it.
> >                             - try cmpxchg()
> > - allocates the vector
> >   from unused space and
> >   initializes it.
> >   (the vector is already
> >    in use and it's overwritten!)
> >
> > - try cmpxchg()
> >
> > But since this is slowpath, using slab_{lock,unlock}() here is probably
> > fine. What do you think?
> 
> Ok, was your original intent to leave these callers as is and allocate
> the vector like we do today even if obj_exts fit inside the slab?

Yes that's what I intended, and maybe later we could allocate the vector
from the unused space even after the slab is allocated, as long as
it doesn't hurt performance.

> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Harry / Hyeonggon

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

Powered by blists - more mailing lists