All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: penberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] slub: ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN defaults to 8 on x86_32. is this too big?
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:25:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1265217903.2118.86.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002030932480.5671@router.home>

On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 09:41 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Richard Kennedy wrote:
> 
> > slub.c sets the default value of ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN to sizeof(unsigned
> > long long) if the architecture didn't already override it.
> >
> > And as x86_32 doesn't set a value this means that slab objects get
> > aligned to 8 bytes, potentially wasting 4 bytes per object. Slub forces
> > objects to be aligned to sizeof(void *) anyway, but I don't see that
> > there is any need for it to be 8 on 32bits.
> 
> Note that 64 bit entities may  exist even under 32 bit (llong) that need
> to be aligned properly.
> 
> struct buffer_head contains a sector_t which is 64 bit so you should align
> to an 8 byte boundary.
> 
> > I'm working on a patch to pack more buffer_heads into each kmem_cache
> > slab page.
> > On 32 bits the structure size is 52 bytes and with the alignment applied
> > I end up with a slab of 73 x 56 byte objects. However, if the minimum
> > alignment was sizeof(void *) then I'd get 78 x 52 byte objects. So there
> > is quite a memory saving to be had in changing this.
> 
> SLUB is not restricted to order 0 pages and can use order 1 or 2 pages as
> long as this reduces the memory footprint (byte wastage in a slab page is
> reduced) and as long as the kernel has contiguous memory available. It
> will use order 0 when memory is fragmented.
> 
> > Can I define a ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN in x86_64 to sizeof(void *) ?
> > or would it be ok to change the default in slub.c to sizeof(void *) ?
> >
> > Or am I missing something ?
> 
> I'd say leave it alone.

I definitely don't want to break the alignment ;) but gcc aligns
unsigned long long on 4 byte boundaries on 32 bit.

Running this test code :-

#ifdef __compiler_offsetof
#define offsetof(TYPE,MEMBER) __compiler_offsetof(TYPE,MEMBER)
#else
#define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) ((size_t) &((TYPE *)0)->MEMBER)
#endif

struct test_align {
	char c;
	unsigned long long l;
};
void main() {
printf( "size = %d , offset of l = $d\n", 
	sizeof(struct test_align),
	offsetof(struct test_align,l) );
}

gives me this output :- 
32 bit : size = 12 , offset of l = 4
64 bit : size = 16 , offset of l = 8

Doesn't that suggest that it would be safe to use sizeof(void *) ?
(at least on x86 anyway).

We end up with a large number of buffer_heads and as they are pretty
small an extra 4 bytes does make a significant difference. 
On my 64 bit machine I often see thousands of pages of buffer_heads, so
squeezing a few more per page could be a considerable saving.

regards
Richard





 



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: penberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] slub: ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN defaults to 8 on x86_32. is this too big?
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:25:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1265217903.2118.86.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002030932480.5671@router.home>

On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 09:41 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Richard Kennedy wrote:
> 
> > slub.c sets the default value of ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN to sizeof(unsigned
> > long long) if the architecture didn't already override it.
> >
> > And as x86_32 doesn't set a value this means that slab objects get
> > aligned to 8 bytes, potentially wasting 4 bytes per object. Slub forces
> > objects to be aligned to sizeof(void *) anyway, but I don't see that
> > there is any need for it to be 8 on 32bits.
> 
> Note that 64 bit entities may  exist even under 32 bit (llong) that need
> to be aligned properly.
> 
> struct buffer_head contains a sector_t which is 64 bit so you should align
> to an 8 byte boundary.
> 
> > I'm working on a patch to pack more buffer_heads into each kmem_cache
> > slab page.
> > On 32 bits the structure size is 52 bytes and with the alignment applied
> > I end up with a slab of 73 x 56 byte objects. However, if the minimum
> > alignment was sizeof(void *) then I'd get 78 x 52 byte objects. So there
> > is quite a memory saving to be had in changing this.
> 
> SLUB is not restricted to order 0 pages and can use order 1 or 2 pages as
> long as this reduces the memory footprint (byte wastage in a slab page is
> reduced) and as long as the kernel has contiguous memory available. It
> will use order 0 when memory is fragmented.
> 
> > Can I define a ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN in x86_64 to sizeof(void *) ?
> > or would it be ok to change the default in slub.c to sizeof(void *) ?
> >
> > Or am I missing something ?
> 
> I'd say leave it alone.

I definitely don't want to break the alignment ;) but gcc aligns
unsigned long long on 4 byte boundaries on 32 bit.

Running this test code :-

#ifdef __compiler_offsetof
#define offsetof(TYPE,MEMBER) __compiler_offsetof(TYPE,MEMBER)
#else
#define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) ((size_t) &((TYPE *)0)->MEMBER)
#endif

struct test_align {
	char c;
	unsigned long long l;
};
void main() {
printf( "size = %d , offset of l = $d\n", 
	sizeof(struct test_align),
	offsetof(struct test_align,l) );
}

gives me this output :- 
32 bit : size = 12 , offset of l = 4
64 bit : size = 16 , offset of l = 8

Doesn't that suggest that it would be safe to use sizeof(void *) ?
(at least on x86 anyway).

We end up with a large number of buffer_heads and as they are pretty
small an extra 4 bytes does make a significant difference. 
On my 64 bit machine I often see thousands of pages of buffer_heads, so
squeezing a few more per page could be a considerable saving.

regards
Richard





 


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-02-03 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-03 14:22 [RFC] slub: ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN defaults to 8 on x86_32. is this too big? Richard Kennedy
2010-02-03 14:22 ` Richard Kennedy
2010-02-03 15:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-02-03 15:41   ` Christoph Lameter
2010-02-03 17:25   ` Richard Kennedy [this message]
2010-02-03 17:25     ` Richard Kennedy
2010-02-04 16:42     ` Christoph Lameter
2010-02-04 16:42       ` Christoph Lameter
2010-02-04  0:07 ` Paul Mundt
2010-02-04  0:07   ` Paul Mundt

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=1265217903.2118.86.camel@localhost \
    --to=richard@rsk.demon.co.uk \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.