From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@mail.ru>,
Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>,
Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-olinux-omap@vger.kernel.orgmap"@vger.kernel.org,
openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Deprecating and removing SLOB
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 10:00:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87187c52-ae48-130b-6479-ae1023915bc1@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bD-uVGJ0=9uc7Lt5zwY+2PM2RTcfOhxEd65S7TvTrJULA@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/8/22 22:44, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:55 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> as we all know, we currently have three slab allocators. As we discussed
>> at LPC [1], it is my hope that one of these allocators has a future, and
>> two of them do not.
>>
>> The unsurprising reasons include code maintenance burden, other features
>> compatible with only a subset of allocators (or more effort spent on the
>> features), blocking API improvements (more on that below), and my
>> inability to pronounce SLAB and SLUB in a properly distinguishable way,
>> without resorting to spelling out the letters.
>>
>> I think (but may be proven wrong) that SLOB is the easier target of the
>> two to be removed, so I'd like to focus on it first.
>>
>> I believe SLOB can be removed because:
>>
>> - AFAIK nobody really uses it? It strives for minimal memory footprint
>> by putting all objects together, which has its CPU performance costs
>> (locking, lack of percpu caching, searching for free space...). I'm not
>> aware of any "tiny linux" deployment that opts for this. For example,
>> OpenWRT seems to use SLUB and the devices these days have e.g. 128MB
>> RAM, not up to 16 MB anymore. I've heard anecdotes that the performance
>> SLOB impact is too much for those who tried. Googling for
>> "CONFIG_SLOB=y" yielded nothing useful.
>
> I am all for removing SLOB.
>
> There are some devices with configs where SLOB is enabled by default.
> Perhaps, the owners/maintainers of those devices/configs should be
> included into this thread:
>
> tatashin@soleen:~/x/linux$ git grep SLOB=y
> arch/arm/configs/clps711x_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/arm/configs/collie_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/arm/configs/multi_v4t_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/arm/configs/omap1_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/arm/configs/pxa_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/arm/configs/tct_hammer_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/arm/configs/xcep_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/openrisc/configs/or1ksim_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/openrisc/configs/simple_smp_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/riscv/configs/nommu_k210_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/riscv/configs/nommu_k210_sdcard_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/riscv/configs/nommu_virt_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/sh/configs/rsk7201_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/sh/configs/rsk7203_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/sh/configs/se7206_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/sh/configs/shmin_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> arch/sh/configs/shx3_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y
> kernel/configs/tiny.config:CONFIG_SLOB=y
Great point, thanks. Ccing. First mail here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA%2BCK2bD-uVGJ0%3D9uc7Lt5zwY%2B2PM2RTcfOhxEd65S7TvTrJULA@mail.gmail.com/
>>
>> - Last time we discussed it [2], it seemed SLUB memory requirements can
>> be brought very close to SLOB's if needed. Of course it can never have
>> as small footprint as SLOB due to separate kmem_caches, but the
>> difference is not that significant, unless somebody still tries to use
>> Linux on very tiny systems (goes back to the previous point).
>>
>> Besides the smaller maintenance burden, removing SLOB would allow us to
>> do a useful API improvement - the ability to use kfree() for both
>> objects allocated by kmalloc() and kmem_cache_alloc(). Currently the
>> latter has to be freed by kmem_cache_free(), passing a kmem_cache
>> pointer in addition to the object pointer. With SLUB and SLAB, it is
>> however possible to use kfree() instead, as the kmalloc caches and the
>> rest of kmem_caches are the same and kfree() can lookup the kmem_cache
>> from object pointer easily for any of those. XFS has apparently did that
>> for years without anyone noticing it's broken on SLOB [3], and
>> legitimizing and expanding this would help some use cases beside XFS
>> (IIRC Matthew mentioned rcu-based freeing for example).
>>
>> However for SLOB to support kfree() on all allocations, it would need to
>> store object size of allocated objects (which it currently does only for
>> kmalloc() objects, prepending a size header to the object), but for
>> kmem_cache_alloc() allocations as well. This has been attempted in the
>> thread [3] but it bloats the memory usage, especially on architectures
>> with large ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN, where the prepended header basically
>> has to occupy the whole ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN block to be DMA safe.
>> There are ongoing efforts to reduce this minalign, but the memory
>> footprint would still increase, going against the purpose of SLOB, so
>> again it would be easier if we could just remove it.
>>
>> So with this thread I'm interested in hearing arguments/use cases for
>> keeping SLOB. There might be obviously users of SLOB whom this
>> conversation will not reach, so I assume the eventual next step would be
>> to deprecate it in a way that those users are notified when building a
>> new kernel and can raise their voice then. Is there a good proven way
>> how to do that for a config option like this one?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vlastimil
>>
>> [1] https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1272/ - slides in the
>> slabs.pdf linked there
>> [2]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211017135708.GA8442@kvm.asia-northeast3-a.c.our-ratio-313919.internal/#t
>> [3]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210930044202.GP2361455@dread.disaster.area/
>>
>>
>>
next parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-09 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <b35c3f82-f67b-2103-7d82-7a7ba7521439@suse.cz>
[not found] ` <CA+CK2bD-uVGJ0=9uc7Lt5zwY+2PM2RTcfOhxEd65S7TvTrJULA@mail.gmail.com>
2022-11-09 9:00 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2022-11-09 15:50 ` Deprecating and removing SLOB Aaro Koskinen
2022-11-09 16:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-11-09 17:45 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-11-09 21:16 ` Janusz Krzysztofik
2022-11-11 10:33 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-11-11 20:46 ` Conor Dooley
2022-11-12 1:40 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-14 1:55 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-14 5:48 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-14 9:36 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-11-14 11:35 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-14 14:47 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2022-11-15 4:24 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-15 4:28 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-16 7:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-11-16 8:02 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-16 17:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-11-17 0:22 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-21 4:30 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-11-21 17:02 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-11-14 11:50 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
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=87187c52-ae48-130b-6479-ae1023915bc1@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc="linux-olinux-omap@vger.kernel.orgmap"@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=aaro.koskinen@iki.fi \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=jmkrzyszt@gmail.com \
--cc=jonas@southpole.se \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=openrisc@lists.librecores.org \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rkovhaev@gmail.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shc_work@mail.ru \
--cc=shorne@gmail.com \
--cc=stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
/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).