All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:50:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151103185050.GJ7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdWk0fPzTSKhoCuS4wsOU1iddhKJb2SOpjo=a_9vCm_KXQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:05:05PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:07:06PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Catalin Marinas
> >> > <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:59:48PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> >> > >> From: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Increase the standard cacheline size to avoid having locks in the same
> >> > >> cacheline.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Cavium's ThunderX core implements cache lines of 128 byte size. With
> >> > >> current granulare size of 64 bytes (L1_CACHE_SHIFT=6) two locks could
> >> > >> share the same cache line leading a performance degradation.
> >> > >> Increasing the size fixes that.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Increasing the size has no negative impact to cache invalidation on
> >> > >> systems with a smaller cache line. There is an impact on memory usage,
> >> > >> but that's not too important for arm64 use cases.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > Applied. Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > This patch causes a BUG() on r8a7795/salvator-x, for which support is not
> >> > yet upstream.
> >> >
> >> > My config (attached) uses SLAB. If I switch to SLUB, it works.
> >> > The arm64 defconfig works, even if I switch from SLUB to SLAB.
> >> [...]
> >> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> > kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2283!
> >> > Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMP
> >> [...]
> >> > Call trace:
> >> > [<ffffffc00014f9b4>] __kmem_cache_create+0x21c/0x280
> >> > [<ffffffc00068be50>] create_boot_cache+0x4c/0x80
> >> > [<ffffffc00068bed8>] create_kmalloc_cache+0x54/0x88
> >> > [<ffffffc00068bfc0>] create_kmalloc_caches+0x50/0xf4
> >> > [<ffffffc00068db08>] kmem_cache_init+0x104/0x118
> >> > [<ffffffc00067d7d8>] start_kernel+0x218/0x33c
> >>
> >> I haven't managed to reproduce this on a Juno kernel.
> >
> > I now managed to reproduce it with your config (slightly adapted to
> > allow Juno). I'll look into it.
> 
> Good to hear that!
> 
> BTW, I see this:
> 
>         freelist_size = 32
>         cache_line_size() = 64
> 
> It seems like the value returned by cache_line_size() in
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h disagrees with L1_CACHE_SHIFT  = 7:
> 
>         static inline int cache_line_size(void)
>         {
>                 u32 cwg = cache_type_cwg();
>                 return cwg ? 4 << cwg : L1_CACHE_BYTES;
>         }
> 
> Making cache_line_size() always return L1_CACHE_BYTES doesn't help.

(cc'ing Jonsoo and Christoph; summary: slab failure with L1_CACHE_BYTES
of 128 and sizeof(kmem_cache_node) of 152)

If I revert commit 8fc9cf420b36 ("slab: make more slab management
structure off the slab") it works but I still need to figure out how
slab indices are calculated. The size_index[] array is overridden so
that 0..15 are 7 and 16..23 are 8. But the kmalloc_caches[7] has never
been populated, hence the BUG_ON. Another option may be to change
kmalloc_size and kmalloc_index to cope with KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE of 128.

I'll do some more investigation tomorrow.

-- 
Catalin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>,
	Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:50:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151103185050.GJ7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdWk0fPzTSKhoCuS4wsOU1iddhKJb2SOpjo=a_9vCm_KXQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:05:05PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:07:06PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Catalin Marinas
> >> > <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:59:48PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> >> > >> From: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Increase the standard cacheline size to avoid having locks in the same
> >> > >> cacheline.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Cavium's ThunderX core implements cache lines of 128 byte size. With
> >> > >> current granulare size of 64 bytes (L1_CACHE_SHIFT=6) two locks could
> >> > >> share the same cache line leading a performance degradation.
> >> > >> Increasing the size fixes that.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Increasing the size has no negative impact to cache invalidation on
> >> > >> systems with a smaller cache line. There is an impact on memory usage,
> >> > >> but that's not too important for arm64 use cases.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > Applied. Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > This patch causes a BUG() on r8a7795/salvator-x, for which support is not
> >> > yet upstream.
> >> >
> >> > My config (attached) uses SLAB. If I switch to SLUB, it works.
> >> > The arm64 defconfig works, even if I switch from SLUB to SLAB.
> >> [...]
> >> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> > kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2283!
> >> > Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMP
> >> [...]
> >> > Call trace:
> >> > [<ffffffc00014f9b4>] __kmem_cache_create+0x21c/0x280
> >> > [<ffffffc00068be50>] create_boot_cache+0x4c/0x80
> >> > [<ffffffc00068bed8>] create_kmalloc_cache+0x54/0x88
> >> > [<ffffffc00068bfc0>] create_kmalloc_caches+0x50/0xf4
> >> > [<ffffffc00068db08>] kmem_cache_init+0x104/0x118
> >> > [<ffffffc00067d7d8>] start_kernel+0x218/0x33c
> >>
> >> I haven't managed to reproduce this on a Juno kernel.
> >
> > I now managed to reproduce it with your config (slightly adapted to
> > allow Juno). I'll look into it.
> 
> Good to hear that!
> 
> BTW, I see this:
> 
>         freelist_size = 32
>         cache_line_size() = 64
> 
> It seems like the value returned by cache_line_size() in
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h disagrees with L1_CACHE_SHIFT  == 7:
> 
>         static inline int cache_line_size(void)
>         {
>                 u32 cwg = cache_type_cwg();
>                 return cwg ? 4 << cwg : L1_CACHE_BYTES;
>         }
> 
> Making cache_line_size() always return L1_CACHE_BYTES doesn't help.

(cc'ing Jonsoo and Christoph; summary: slab failure with L1_CACHE_BYTES
of 128 and sizeof(kmem_cache_node) of 152)

If I revert commit 8fc9cf420b36 ("slab: make more slab management
structure off the slab") it works but I still need to figure out how
slab indices are calculated. The size_index[] array is overridden so
that 0..15 are 7 and 16..23 are 8. But the kmalloc_caches[7] has never
been populated, hence the BUG_ON. Another option may be to change
kmalloc_size and kmalloc_index to cope with KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE of 128.

I'll do some more investigation tomorrow.

-- 
Catalin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:50:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151103185050.GJ7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdWk0fPzTSKhoCuS4wsOU1iddhKJb2SOpjo=a_9vCm_KXQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:55:29PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:05:05PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:07:06PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Catalin Marinas
> >> > <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:59:48PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> >> > >> From: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Increase the standard cacheline size to avoid having locks in the same
> >> > >> cacheline.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Cavium's ThunderX core implements cache lines of 128 byte size. With
> >> > >> current granulare size of 64 bytes (L1_CACHE_SHIFT=6) two locks could
> >> > >> share the same cache line leading a performance degradation.
> >> > >> Increasing the size fixes that.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Increasing the size has no negative impact to cache invalidation on
> >> > >> systems with a smaller cache line. There is an impact on memory usage,
> >> > >> but that's not too important for arm64 use cases.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > Applied. Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > This patch causes a BUG() on r8a7795/salvator-x, for which support is not
> >> > yet upstream.
> >> >
> >> > My config (attached) uses SLAB. If I switch to SLUB, it works.
> >> > The arm64 defconfig works, even if I switch from SLUB to SLAB.
> >> [...]
> >> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> > kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2283!
> >> > Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMP
> >> [...]
> >> > Call trace:
> >> > [<ffffffc00014f9b4>] __kmem_cache_create+0x21c/0x280
> >> > [<ffffffc00068be50>] create_boot_cache+0x4c/0x80
> >> > [<ffffffc00068bed8>] create_kmalloc_cache+0x54/0x88
> >> > [<ffffffc00068bfc0>] create_kmalloc_caches+0x50/0xf4
> >> > [<ffffffc00068db08>] kmem_cache_init+0x104/0x118
> >> > [<ffffffc00067d7d8>] start_kernel+0x218/0x33c
> >>
> >> I haven't managed to reproduce this on a Juno kernel.
> >
> > I now managed to reproduce it with your config (slightly adapted to
> > allow Juno). I'll look into it.
> 
> Good to hear that!
> 
> BTW, I see this:
> 
>         freelist_size = 32
>         cache_line_size() = 64
> 
> It seems like the value returned by cache_line_size() in
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h disagrees with L1_CACHE_SHIFT  == 7:
> 
>         static inline int cache_line_size(void)
>         {
>                 u32 cwg = cache_type_cwg();
>                 return cwg ? 4 << cwg : L1_CACHE_BYTES;
>         }
> 
> Making cache_line_size() always return L1_CACHE_BYTES doesn't help.

(cc'ing Jonsoo and Christoph; summary: slab failure with L1_CACHE_BYTES
of 128 and sizeof(kmem_cache_node) of 152)

If I revert commit 8fc9cf420b36 ("slab: make more slab management
structure off the slab") it works but I still need to figure out how
slab indices are calculated. The size_index[] array is overridden so
that 0..15 are 7 and 16..23 are 8. But the kmalloc_caches[7] has never
been populated, hence the BUG_ON. Another option may be to change
kmalloc_size and kmalloc_index to cope with KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE of 128.

I'll do some more investigation tomorrow.

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-03 18:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-22 17:59 [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size Robert Richter
2015-09-22 17:59 ` Robert Richter
2015-09-22 18:29 ` Will Deacon
2015-09-22 18:29   ` Will Deacon
2015-09-25 14:45   ` Robert Richter
2015-09-25 14:45     ` Robert Richter
2015-09-25 16:31     ` Tirumalesh Chalamarla
2015-09-25 16:31       ` Tirumalesh Chalamarla
2015-10-10 17:39 ` Timur Tabi
2015-10-10 17:39   ` Timur Tabi
2015-10-12  9:16   ` Will Deacon
2015-10-12  9:16     ` Will Deacon
2015-10-16 19:57 ` Timur Tabi
2015-10-16 19:57   ` Timur Tabi
2015-10-28 19:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-28 19:09   ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 11:07   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-03 12:05     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 12:05       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 12:05       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 14:38       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 14:38         ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 14:38         ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 14:55         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-03 14:55           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-03 14:55           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-03 18:50           ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2015-11-03 18:50             ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 18:50             ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 23:33             ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-03 23:33               ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-03 23:33               ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 12:36               ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 12:36                 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 12:36                 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 12:36                 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 13:53                 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 13:53                   ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 13:53                   ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 13:53                   ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 14:54                   ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 14:54                     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 14:54                     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 14:54                     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 15:28                     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 15:28                       ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 15:28                       ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 15:28                       ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 15:39                       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 15:39                         ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 15:39                         ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 15:39                         ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05  4:31                         ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05  4:31                           ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05  4:31                           ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05  4:31                           ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05 11:50                           ` [PATCH] mm: slab: Only move management objects off-slab for sizes larger than KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 11:50                             ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 11:50                             ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 13:31                             ` Andrew Morton
2015-11-05 13:31                               ` Andrew Morton
2015-11-05 13:31                               ` Andrew Morton
2015-11-05 16:08                               ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 16:08                                 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 16:08                                 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 13:00                                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-06 13:00                                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-06 13:00                                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-05 17:39                             ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-05 17:39                               ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-05 17:39                               ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-05  4:40 ` [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05  4:40   ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05 10:32   ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 10:32     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 11:45     ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05 11:45       ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05 12:17       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 12:17         ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-09  7:41         ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-09  7:41           ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-09 18:36           ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-09 18:36             ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-10  0:19             ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-10  0:19               ` Joonsoo Kim

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=20151103185050.GJ7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.