From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH] alloc_percpu() fails to allocate percpu data
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:00:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47BDBC23.10605@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]
Some oprofile results obtained while using tbench on a 2x2 cpu machine
were very surprising.
For example, loopback_xmit() function was using high number of cpu
cycles to perform
the statistic updates, supposed to be real cheap since they use percpu data
pcpu_lstats = netdev_priv(dev);
lb_stats = per_cpu_ptr(pcpu_lstats, smp_processor_id());
lb_stats->packets++; /* HERE : serious contention */
lb_stats->bytes += skb->len;
struct pcpu_lstats is a small structure containing two longs. It appears
that on my 32bits platform,
alloc_percpu(8) allocates a single cache line, instead of giving to
each cpu a separate
cache line.
Using the following patch gave me impressive boost in various benchmarks
( 6 % in tbench)
(all percpu_counters hit this bug too)
Long term fix (ie >= 2.6.26) would be to let each CPU allocate their own
block of memory, so that we
dont need to roudup sizes to L1_CACHE_BYTES, or merging the SGI stuff of
course...
Note : SLUB vs SLAB is important here to *show* the improvement, since
they dont have the same minimum
allocation sizes (8 bytes vs 32 bytes).
This could very well explain regressions some guys reported when they
switched to SLUB.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
mm/allocpercpu.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
[-- Attachment #2: percpu_populate.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]
diff --git a/mm/allocpercpu.c b/mm/allocpercpu.c
index 7e58322..b0012e2 100644
--- a/mm/allocpercpu.c
+++ b/mm/allocpercpu.c
@@ -6,6 +6,10 @@
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
+#ifndef cache_line_size
+#define cache_line_size() L1_CACHE_BYTES
+#endif
+
/**
* percpu_depopulate - depopulate per-cpu data for given cpu
* @__pdata: per-cpu data to depopulate
@@ -52,6 +56,11 @@ void *percpu_populate(void *__pdata, size_t size, gfp_t gfp, int cpu)
struct percpu_data *pdata = __percpu_disguise(__pdata);
int node = cpu_to_node(cpu);
+ /*
+ * We should make sure each CPU gets private memory.
+ */
+ size = roundup(size, cache_line_size());
+
BUG_ON(pdata->ptrs[cpu]);
if (node_online(node))
pdata->ptrs[cpu] = kmalloc_node(size, gfp|__GFP_ZERO, node);
@@ -98,7 +107,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_populate_mask);
*/
void *__percpu_alloc_mask(size_t size, gfp_t gfp, cpumask_t *mask)
{
- void *pdata = kzalloc(nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(void *), gfp);
+ /*
+ * We allocate whole cache lines to avoid false sharing
+ */
+ size_t sz = roundup(nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(void *), cache_line_size());
+ void *pdata = kzalloc(sz, gfp);
void *__pdata = __percpu_disguise(pdata);
if (unlikely(!pdata))
next reply other threads:[~2008-02-21 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-21 18:00 Eric Dumazet [this message]
2008-02-21 22:26 ` [PATCH] alloc_percpu() fails to allocate percpu data Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-23 9:23 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-27 19:44 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-03 3:14 ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-03 7:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-03 9:41 ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-03 19:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-23 8:04 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-27 19:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-27 20:24 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-27 21:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-01 13:53 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-11 18:15 ` Mike Snitzer
2008-03-11 18:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-11 19:39 ` Mike Snitzer
2008-03-12 0:18 ` [stable] " Chris Wright
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=47BDBC23.10605@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.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).