From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] mm, sl[au]b: Introduce lockless cache
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:32:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210922083228.GA79355@kvm.asia-northeast3-a.c.our-ratio-313919.internal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YUoFfrQBmOdPEKpJ@casper.infradead.org>
Hello Matthew.
There's good news.
in v3 (work in progress now), I fixed some bugs (I hate kernel panics!)
And for test, made NAPI use it. it works pretty well.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 05:17:02PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 03:42:39PM +0000, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > > > + /* slowpath */
> > > > + cache->size = kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(s, gfpflags,
> > > > + KMEM_LOCKLESS_CACHE_QUEUE_SIZE, cache->queue);
> > >
> > > Go back to the Bonwick paper and look at the magazine section again.
> > > You have to allocate _half_ the size of the queue, otherwise you get
> > > into pathological situations where you start to free and allocate
> > > every time.
> >
> > I want to ask you where idea of allocating 'half' the size of queue came from.
> > the paper you sent does not work with single queue(magazine). Instead,
> > it manages pool of magazines.
> >
> > And after reading the paper, I see managing pool of magazine (where M is
> > an boot parameter) is valid approach to reduce hitting slowpath.
>
> Bonwick uses two magazines per cpu; if both are empty, one is replaced
> with a full one. If both are full, one is replaced with an empty one.
> Our slab implementation doesn't provide magazine allocation, but it does
> provide bulk allocation.
> So translating the Bonwick implementation to
> our implementation, we need to bulk-allocate or bulk-free half of the
> array at any time.
Is there a reason that the number should be 'half'?
what about something like this:
diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index 884d3311cd8e..f32736302d53 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -455,12 +455,13 @@ void *kmem_cache_alloc_cached(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags)
}
cache = get_cpu_ptr(s->cache);
- if (cache->size) /* fastpath without lock */
+ if (cache->size) /* fastpath without lock */
p = cache->queue[--cache->size];
else {
/* slowpath */
- cache->size = kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(s, gfpflags,
- KMEM_LOCKLESS_CACHE_QUEUE_SIZE, cache->queue);
+ cache->size += kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(s, gfpflags,
+ KMEM_LOCKLESS_CACHE_BATCHCOUNT,
+ cache->queue);
if (cache->size)
p = cache->queue[--cache->size];
else
@@ -491,13 +492,13 @@ void kmem_cache_free_cached(struct kmem_cache *s, void *p)
cache = get_cpu_ptr(s->cache);
if (cache->size < KMEM_LOCKLESS_CACHE_QUEUE_SIZE) {
cache->queue[cache->size++] = p;
- put_cpu_ptr(s->cache);
- return ;
+ } else {
+ kmem_cache_free_bulk(s,
+ KMEM_LOCKLESS_CACHE_BATCHCOUNT,
+ cache->queue - KMEM_LOCKLESS_CACHE_BATCHCOUNT);
+ cache->size -= KMEM_LOCKLESS_CACHE_BATCHCOUNT;
}
put_cpu_ptr(s->cache);
-
- /* Is there better way to do this? */
- kmem_cache_free(s, p);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free_cached);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-22 8:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-20 15:48 [RFC v2 PATCH] mm, sl[au]b: Introduce lockless cache Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-09-20 22:01 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-09-21 10:56 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-09-21 15:42 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-09-21 16:17 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-09-22 8:32 ` Hyeonggon Yoo [this message]
2021-09-22 9:11 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-09-21 15:37 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-22 8:19 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-09-22 12:58 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-23 3:34 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2021-09-23 13:28 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-09-23 3:55 ` Github link here 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=20210922083228.GA79355@kvm.asia-northeast3-a.c.our-ratio-313919.internal \
--to=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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).