linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	guro@fb.com,  vbabka@suse.cz, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	 aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the slub page order
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:48:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDtTkuKRJH-otGM1ZUP1tZUAfLMr5prRiN_T68bZ5m5Bw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2101210959060.100764@www.lameter.com>

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 11:01, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> > > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 224.
> > > This makes the use of num_online_cpus() irrelevant for those cases
> > >
> > > After adding in my command line "slub_min_objects=36" which equals to
> > > 4 * (fls(num_online_cpus()) + 1) with a correct num_online_cpus == 224
> > > , the regression diseapears:
> > >
> > > 9 iterations of hackbench -l 16000 -g 16: 3.201sec (+/- 0.90%)
> >
> > Should we have switched to num_present_cpus() rather than
> > num_online_cpus()? If so, the below patch should address the
> > above problem.
>
> There is certainly an initcall after secondaries are booted where we could
> redo the calculate_order?
>
> Or the num_online_cpus needs to be up to date earlier. Why does this issue
> not occur on x86? Does x86 have an up to date num_online_cpus earlier?

I have added a printk in calculate_order() :
        pr_info(" SLUB calculate_order cmd  %d min %d online %d
present %d possible %d cpus %d", slub_min_objects, min_objects,
num_online_cpus(), num_present_cpus(), num_possible_cpus(),
nr_cpu_ids);

And checked with
qemu-system-x86_64 -kernel bzImage -nographic -smp 4 -append "console=ttyS0"

[    0.064927]  SLUB calculate_order cmd  0 min 8 online 1 present 4
possible 4 cpus 4
[    0.064970] SLUB: HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=4, Nodes=1

The num_online_cpus has the same behavior as on my platform and
num_online_cpus =  1 when kmem_cache_init() is called

Only the num_present_cpus = 4 from the beginning but that's probably
just because it runs in a VM

Also it's interesting to notice that num_possible_cpus and nr_cpu_ids
are set to the correct value

>
>


  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-21 10:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-18  8:27 [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the slub page order Bharata B Rao
2020-11-18 11:25 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-11-18 19:34   ` Roman Gushchin
2020-11-18 19:53     ` David Rientjes
2021-01-20 17:36 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-21  5:30   ` Bharata B Rao
2021-01-21  9:09     ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-21 10:01     ` Christoph Lameter
2021-01-21 10:48       ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2021-01-21 18:19       ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-22  8:03         ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-22 12:03           ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-22 13:16             ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-23  5:16             ` Bharata B Rao
2021-01-23 12:32               ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-25 11:20                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-26 23:03                   ` Will Deacon
2021-01-27  9:10                     ` Christoph Lameter
2021-01-27 11:04                       ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-03 11:10                         ` Bharata B Rao
2021-02-04  7:32                           ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-04  9:07                             ` Christoph Lameter
2021-02-04  9:33                           ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-08 13:41                             ` [PATCH] mm, slub: better heuristic for number of cpus when calculating slab order Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-08 14:54                               ` Vincent Guittot
2021-02-10 14:07                               ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-22 13:05         ` [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the slub page order Jann Horn
2021-01-22 13:09           ` Jann Horn
2021-01-22 15:27           ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-25  4:28           ` Bharata B Rao
2021-01-26  8:52         ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-26 13:38           ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-26 13:59             ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-28 13:45               ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-28 13:57                 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-28 14:42                   ` Mel Gorman

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=CAKfTPtDtTkuKRJH-otGM1ZUP1tZUAfLMr5prRiN_T68bZ5m5Bw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=bharata@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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).