From: xunlei <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Wen Yang <wenyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/slub: Introduce two counters for the partial objects
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:57:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5eeb5c3d-1a34-ad96-9010-4d8a5ac32241@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJsxLFnY=4v6UQigyiZKTMTQXKakVOKf6KA+bCkMe-XVY6sqA@mail.gmail.com>
On 2020/7/7 下午11:23, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> (Sorry for the delay, I missed your response.)
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM xunlei <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/7/2 PM 7:59, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:32 AM Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>> The node list_lock in count_partial() spend long time iterating
>>>> in case of large amount of partial page lists, which can cause
>>>> thunder herd effect to the list_lock contention, e.g. it cause
>>>> business response-time jitters when accessing "/proc/slabinfo"
>>>> in our production environments.
>>>
>>> Would you have any numbers to share to quantify this jitter? I have no
>>
>> We have HSF RT(High-speed Service Framework Response-Time) monitors, the
>> RT figures fluctuated randomly, then we deployed a tool detecting "irq
>> off" and "preempt off" to dump the culprit's calltrace, capturing the
>> list_lock cost up to 100ms with irq off issued by "ss", this also caused
>> network timeouts.
>
> Thanks for the follow up. This sounds like a good enough motivation
> for this patch, but please include it in the changelog.
>
>>> objections to this approach, but I think the original design
>>> deliberately made reading "/proc/slabinfo" more expensive to avoid
>>> atomic operations in the allocation/deallocation paths. It would be
>>> good to understand what is the gain of this approach before we switch
>>> to it. Maybe even run some slab-related benchmark (not sure if there's
>>> something better than hackbench these days) to see if the overhead of
>>> this approach shows up.
>>
>> I thought that before, but most atomic operations are serialized by the
>> list_lock. Another possible way is to hold list_lock in __slab_free(),
>> then these two counters can be changed from atomic to long.
>>
>> I also have no idea what's the standard SLUB benchmark for the
>> regression test, any specific suggestion?
>
> I don't know what people use these days. When I did benchmarking in
> the past, hackbench and netperf were known to be slab-allocation
> intensive macro-benchmarks. Christoph also had some SLUB
> micro-benchmarks, but I don't think we ever merged them into the tree.
I tested hackbench on 24-CPU machine, here are the results:
"hackbench 20 thread 1000"
== orignal(without any patch)
Time: 53.793
Time: 54.305
Time: 54.073
== with my patch1~2
Time: 54.036
Time: 53.840
Time: 54.066
Time: 53.449
== with my patch1~2, plus using a percpu partial free objects counter
Time: 53.303
Time: 52.994
Time: 53.218
Time: 53.268
Time: 53.739
Time: 53.072
The results show no performance regression, it's strange that the
figures even get a little better when using percpu counter.
Thanks,
Xunlei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-31 2:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-02 8:32 [PATCH 1/2] mm/slub: Introduce two counters for the partial objects Xunlei Pang
2020-07-02 8:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/slub: Get rid of count_partial() Xunlei Pang
2020-07-02 11:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/slub: Introduce two counters for the partial objects Pekka Enberg
2020-07-03 9:37 ` xunlei
2020-07-07 15:23 ` Pekka Enberg
2020-07-09 14:32 ` Christopher Lameter
2020-07-31 2:57 ` xunlei [this message]
2020-07-07 6:59 ` Christopher Lameter
2020-07-31 2:52 ` xunlei
2020-08-06 12:42 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-08-07 7:25 ` Pekka Enberg
2020-08-07 13:02 ` Christopher Lameter
2020-08-07 17:28 ` Pekka Enberg
2020-08-10 11:56 ` xunlei
2020-08-11 12:52 ` Christopher Lameter
2020-08-20 13:58 ` Pekka Enberg
2020-08-24 9:59 ` xunlei
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5eeb5c3d-1a34-ad96-9010-4d8a5ac32241@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=xlpang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@gmail.com \
--cc=wenyang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).