linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Cc: cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/slub: improve performance by skipping checked node in get_any_partial()
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:05:55 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181121190555.c010ac50e7eaa141549a63e5@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181120033119.30013-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:31:19 +0800 Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. Background
> 
>   Current slub has three layers:
> 
>     * cpu_slab
>     * percpu_partial
>     * per node partial list
> 
>   Slub allocator tries to get an object from top to bottom. When it can't
>   get an object from the upper two layers, it will search the per node
>   partial list. The is done in get_partial().
> 
>   The abstraction of get_partial() may looks like this:
> 
>       get_partial()
>           get_partial_node()
>           get_any_partial()
>               for_each_zone_zonelist()
> 
>   The idea behind this is: it first try a local node, then try other nodes
>   if caller doesn't specify a node.
> 
> 2. Room for Improvement
> 
>   When we look one step deeper in get_any_partial(), it tries to get a
>   proper node by for_each_zone_zonelist(), which iterates on the
>   node_zonelists.
> 
>   This behavior would introduce some redundant check on the same node.
>   Because:
> 
>     * the local node is already checked in get_partial_node()
>     * one node may have several zones on node_zonelists
> 
> 3. Solution Proposed in Patch
> 
>   We could reduce these redundant check by record the last unsuccessful
>   node and then skip it.
> 
> 4. Tests & Result
> 
>   After some tests, the result shows this may improve the system a little,
>   especially on a machine with only one node.
> 
> 4.1 Test Description
> 
>   There are two cases for two system configurations.
> 
>   Test Cases:
> 
>     1. counter comparison
>     2. kernel build test
> 
>   System Configuration:
> 
>     1. One node machine with 4G
>     2. Four node machine with 8G
> 
> 4.2 Result for Test 1
> 
>   Test 1: counter comparison
> 
>   This is a test with hacked kernel to record times function
>   get_any_partial() is invoked and times the inner loop iterates. By
>   comparing the ratio of two counters, we get to know how many inner
>   loops we skipped.
> 
>   Here is a snip of the test patch.
> 
>   ---
>   static void *get_any_partial() {
> 
> 	get_partial_count++;
> 
>         do {
> 		for_each_zone_zonelist() {
> 			get_partial_try_count++;
> 		}
> 	} while();
> 
> 	return NULL;
>   }
>   ---
> 
>   The result of (get_partial_count / get_partial_try_count):
> 
>    +----------+----------------+------------+-------------+
>    |          |       Base     |    Patched |  Improvement|
>    +----------+----------------+------------+-------------+
>    |One Node  |       1:3      |    1:0     |      - 100% |
>    +----------+----------------+------------+-------------+
>    |Four Nodes|       1:5.8    |    1:2.5   |      -  56% |
>    +----------+----------------+------------+-------------+
> 
> 4.3 Result for Test 2
> 
>   Test 2: kernel build
> 
>    Command used:
> 
>    > time make -j8 bzImage
> 
>    Each version/system configuration combination has four round kernel
>    build tests. Take the average result of real to compare.
> 
>    +----------+----------------+------------+-------------+
>    |          |       Base     |   Patched  |  Improvement|
>    +----------+----------------+------------+-------------+
>    |One Node  |      4m41s     |   4m32s    |     - 4.47% |
>    +----------+----------------+------------+-------------+
>    |Four Nodes|      4m45s     |   4m39s    |     - 2.92% |
>    +----------+----------------+------------+-------------+
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> 

Looks good to me, but I'll await input from the slab maintainers before
proceeding any further.

I didn't like the variable name much, and the comment could be
improved.  Please review:


--- a/mm/slub.c~mm-slub-improve-performance-by-skipping-checked-node-in-get_any_partial-fix
+++ a/mm/slub.c
@@ -1873,7 +1873,7 @@ static void *get_partial_node(struct kme
  * Get a page from somewhere. Search in increasing NUMA distances.
  */
 static void *get_any_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags,
-		struct kmem_cache_cpu *c, int except)
+		struct kmem_cache_cpu *c, int exclude_nid)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
 	struct zonelist *zonelist;
@@ -1911,7 +1911,7 @@ static void *get_any_partial(struct kmem
 		for_each_zone_zonelist(zone, z, zonelist, high_zoneidx) {
 			struct kmem_cache_node *n;
 
-			if (except == zone_to_nid(zone))
+			if (exclude_nid == zone_to_nid(zone))
 				continue;
 
 			n = get_node(s, zone_to_nid(zone));
@@ -1931,12 +1931,13 @@ static void *get_any_partial(struct kmem
 				}
 			}
 			/*
-			 * Fail to get object from this node, either because
-			 *   1. Fails in if check
-			 *   2. NULl object returns from get_partial_node()
-			 * Skip it next time.
+			 * Failed to get an object from this node, either 
+			 * because
+			 *   1. Failure in the above if check
+			 *   2. NULL return from get_partial_node()
+			 * So skip this node next time.
 			 */
-			except = zone_to_nid(zone);
+			exclude_nid = zone_to_nid(zone);
 		}
 	} while (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie));
 #endif
_

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-22  3:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-08  1:12 [PATCH] mm/slub: skip node in case there is no slab to acquire Wei Yang
2018-11-09 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2018-11-09 23:47   ` Wei Yang
2018-11-13  9:12 ` [PATCH v2] " Wei Yang
2018-11-13 13:17 ` [PATCH] " Michal Hocko
2018-11-13 13:26   ` Wei Yang
2018-11-13 13:34     ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-20  3:31 ` [PATCH v2] mm/slub: improve performance by skipping checked node in get_any_partial() Wei Yang
2018-11-22  3:05   ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2018-11-22  9:13     ` Wei Yang
2018-11-22 23:41     ` Wei Yang
2018-11-23 13:39       ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-23 13:49         ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-23 15:27           ` Wei Yang
2018-12-20 22:41   ` Andrew Morton
2018-12-21  0:25     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-12-21  3:29       ` Wei Yang
2018-12-21  1:37     ` Christopher Lameter
2018-12-21  1:37       ` Christopher Lameter
2018-12-21  3:33       ` Wei Yang
2018-12-24 22:03       ` Wei Yang

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=20181121190555.c010ac50e7eaa141549a63e5@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.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).