From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] zsmalloc: allow only one active pool compaction context
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:05:44 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230418030544.GS25053@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230417174131.44de959204814209ef73e53e@linux-foundation.org>
On (23/04/17 17:41), Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:54:20 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Introduce pool compaction mutex and permit only one compaction
> > context at a time. This reduces overall pool->lock contention.
>
> That isn't what the patch does! Perhaps an earlier version used a mutex?
Oh, yes.
[..]
> > @@ -2274,6 +2275,9 @@ unsigned long zs_compact(struct zs_pool *pool)
> > struct size_class *class;
> > unsigned long pages_freed = 0;
> >
> > + if (atomic_xchg(&pool->compaction_in_progress, 1))
> > + return 0;
> > +
>
> A code comment might be appropriate here.
OK.
> Is the spin_is_contended() test in __zs_compact() still relevant?
I'd say yes, pool->lock is "big pool lock", we use it for everything:
zs_map_object() when we read objects, zs_malloc() when we allocate objects,
zs_free() when we free objects, etc.
> And.... single-threading the operation seems a pretty sad way of
> addressing a contention issue. zs_compact() is fairly computationally
> expensive - surely a large machine would like to be able to
> concurrently run many instances of zs_compact()?
Compaction is effective only when zspool suffers from internal fragmentation.
Concurrent compaction threads iterate size classes in the same order and are
likely to compete for pool->lock to just find out that previous pool->lock
owner has compacted the class already and there isn't much left to do.
As of concurrent compaction on big machines, the thing is - concurrent
compaction doesn't really happen. We always have just one thread compacting
size classes under pool->lock, the remaining compaction threads just spin on
pool->lock. I believe it used to be slightly different in the past when we
had per size-class lock instead of "global" pool->lock. Commit c0547d0b6a4b
("zsmalloc: consolidate zs_pool's migrate_lock and size_class's locks") has
basically made compaction single-threaded.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-18 3:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-17 13:54 [PATCHv2] zsmalloc: allow only one active pool compaction context Sergey Senozhatsky
2023-04-17 18:32 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-17 23:58 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2023-04-18 0:41 ` Andrew Morton
2023-04-18 2:53 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-18 11:24 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2023-04-18 19:37 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-04-18 3:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
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=20230418030544.GS25053@google.com \
--to=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=yosryahmed@google.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).