From: Rob Herring <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Frank Rowand <email@example.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Michael Ellerman <email@example.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Paul Mackerras <email@example.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Efficiency of the phandle_cache on ppc64/SLOF
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:42:55 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqLAHjzoD67ocKf=Bv6X2S0fmC6HkezduC_61V-eeiqqTw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 2:17 AM Frank Rowand <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 12/9/19 7:51 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:35 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> On 2019-12-05 20:01:41 [-0600], Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>> Is there a memory usage issue for the systems that led to this thread?
> >> No, no memory issue led to this thread. I was just testing my patch and
> >> I assumed that I did something wrong in the counting/lock drop/lock
> >> acquire/allocate path because the array was hardly used. So I started to
> >> look deeper…
> >> Once I figured out everything was fine, I was curious if everyone is
> >> aware of the different phandle creation by dtc vs POWER. And I posted
> >> the mail in the thread.
> >> Once you confirmed that everything is "known / not an issue" I was ready
> >> to take off .
> >> Later more replies came in such as one mail  from Rob describing the
> >> original reason with 814 phandles. _Here_ I was just surprised that 1024
> >> were used over 64 entries for a benefit of 60ms. I understand that this
> >> is low concern for you because that memory is released if modules are
> >> not enabled. I usually see that module support is left enabled.
> >> However, Rob suggested / asked about the fixed size array (this is how I
> >> understood it):
> >> |And yes, as mentioned earlier I don't like the complexity. I didn't
> >> |from the start and I'm I'm still of the opinion we should have a
> >> |fixed or 1 time sized true cache (i.e. smaller than total # of
> >> |phandles). That would solve the RT memory allocation and locking issue
> >> |too.
> >> so I attempted to ask if we should have the fixed size array maybe
> >> with the hash_32() instead the mask. This would make my other patch
> >> obsolete because the fixed size array should not have a RT issue. The
> >> hash_32() part here would address the POWER issue where the cache is
> >> currently not used efficiently.
> >> If you want instead to keep things as-is then this is okay from my side.
> >> If you want to keep this cache off on POWER then I could contribute a
> >> patch doing so.
> > It turns out there's actually a bug in the current implementation. If
> > we have multiple phandles with the same mask, then we leak node
> > references if we miss in the cache and re-assign the cache entry.
> Aaargh. Patch sent.
> > Easily fixed I suppose, but holding a ref count for a cached entry
> > seems wrong. That means we never have a ref count of 0 on every node
> > with a phandle.
> It will go to zero when the cache is freed.
> My memory is that we free the cache as part of removing an overlay. I'll
> verify whether my memory is correct.
Yes, as part of having entries for every phandle we release and
realloc when number of phandles changes. If the size is fixed, then we
can stop doing that. We only need to remove entries in
of_detach_node() as that should always happen before nodes are
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-11 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-29 15:10 [RFC] Efficiency of the phandle_cache on ppc64/SLOF Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-11-30 2:14 ` Frank Rowand
2019-12-02 11:07 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-12-03 4:12 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-03 4:28 ` Frank Rowand
2019-12-03 16:56 ` Rob Herring
2019-12-05 16:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-12-06 2:01 ` Frank Rowand
2019-12-09 13:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-12-10 1:51 ` Rob Herring
2019-12-10 8:17 ` Frank Rowand
2019-12-10 12:46 ` Frank Rowand
2019-12-11 14:42 ` Rob Herring [this message]
2019-12-06 1:52 ` Frank Rowand
2019-12-08 6:59 ` Frank Rowand
2019-12-03 4:03 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-12-03 18:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-06 1:37 ` Frank Rowand
2019-12-06 23:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-08 4:30 ` Frank Rowand
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).