From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1961C4332F for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A518B8E0001; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 23:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A01F46B0073; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 23:30:58 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 87B968E0001; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 23:30:58 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775BC6B0072 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 23:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFCF40AB8 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:30:58 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80156174196.23.E859ADE Received: from esa1.hgst.iphmx.com (esa1.hgst.iphmx.com [68.232.141.245]) by imf26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B07140005 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:30:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wdc.com; i=@wdc.com; q=dns/txt; s=dkim.wdc.com; t=1669005057; x=1700541057; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4beOSLpbYZX+oR0kMpyCYOPvXowctFP1xAU6PZQst0A=; b=ZjL/q9KE0MlRXLI0Dy7NhDek4YVnK3G+0UssBzvmpOSMQE4ur65l9Ubw 5+1RKUnZjcUGAid005XOn+z3CDfFG9zyFcU2M1ILp3FX3PwxSDy4aZfPI QNjM+W7WQAdyvYGPTmEZ0LX+giBKZ3xrnJsXgvLJFs0c4SN/Qq4qKA7wS 6mOtRu/JQPNGlcjTF9EjXyf/8Off6rcg5JgLT9Gm86ZuRZ86HuGFsdiL0 /dhZaNF2YalL4SCXNbyChQ2Tr+c8fORQRCN3rMj5p7uSRUshcptkSiSrN /OfyN0KEHPa5bjJkPP8jasWHkSwj4hlCD9+nWsWpdh5AOJa9DTJr+fM/g Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,180,1665417600"; d="scan'208";a="328857195" Received: from h199-255-45-15.hgst.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.15]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2022 12:30:55 +0800 IronPort-SDR: 2KdEDO0A+6ujkQQkcjbZz+7LO+IlR3oLaa1nWM201/NJiB55mdXSh46bG9xG11kASNFSVXlEvl idkY5cNNsQR+C+D2O2p5P0cJmHGoKad+l8LW48DaLfNBS4JfgCGe0xhRUYptefC+rtXLiGM1Dz 76vmJ44D78Hofgxqa+FIX7pAn6aZv+4GpGD4aLLHD9RcbaeWqQsS+oa57W3NQ3YSIixFeI97Wj jWinWDck7hH0XwCct0zhe8+NN4civ5IpN/cM9byOMGbDbSaRgStjZ8ejc6yL314roZEYj1nwxo MA0= Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com ([10.248.3.37]) by uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 20 Nov 2022 19:44:01 -0800 IronPort-SDR: Iq6BI6HMOGkrfg/TjWBEs/NPq9xkYjdKMSwOWc1/A0UCSe9SW4gTwd960A1BQQzJH3qTW/qhY5 dcinhXEJbJgUGwb1bELoshx7BXXgLn69EE1HPdXGOwZj3Wl3vw87MYtj/jvo+hxXxP3SX8WzB8 bXTZb0F45cqroGXSgJtVXM1ViF3AB/0VsW2q4FhWxyLK1JrxIOB5vHmVAxaE0xpMBFPmb1E/In 75EIJS7ooL/1RPaT8hdSOgmW0U24s0Nftf721Q4GlGSV1DEpnHG+n0j/yJK0RJy1jR71uzGilN Wj0= WDCIronportException: Internal Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([10.3.10.180]) by uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 20 Nov 2022 20:30:55 -0800 Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com [127.0.0.1]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NFvb24mTvz1RwqL for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 20:30:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d= opensource.wdc.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :in-reply-to:organization:from:references:to:content-language :subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id; s=dkim; t= 1669005051; x=1671597052; bh=4beOSLpbYZX+oR0kMpyCYOPvXowctFP1xAU 6PZQst0A=; b=DX8VtzDJtDLp+nbV8JfB/atCqssiGHbs8sw4ticxcnx+rKmYogt 0+a7OpzuOgyHZUSErlzM/rTCGZ3mN1MZLlMv2uUAXusBUgMSofwrQT8q5MXTRS6l nqNBwSmYYe4nL0e75b+Lun20ZS1Fe68DMsIeGk3IagPkYQULNAzYkHjFxP8fo6UK BJOvdq7cIsD+vw2NZDuBOnzqNfgN6CEjAMWQ3QQ3KSMjIJ++uAoeYyrcU7OwGGL6 EOsGI8rKz0M+n4XiUpRSbSfkLP/lcTcD3S97BjYAWXg+WowiCL8jgN9TldU7V/6K s+FUUMdcDPKR4xbXjz2r9OSdIWb4oPX4dug== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([127.0.0.1]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id JtpCEF3nHgOx for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 20:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.225.163.53] (unknown [10.225.163.53]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4NFvZq1TDDz1RvLy; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 20:30:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6a1883c4-4c3f-545a-90e8-2cd805bcf4ae@opensource.wdc.com> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 13:30:41 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Subject: Re: Deprecating and removing SLOB Content-Language: en-US To: Vlastimil Babka , Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> Cc: Conor Dooley , Pasha Tatashin , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Pekka Enberg , Matthew Wilcox , Roman Gushchin , Linus Torvalds , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Catalin Marinas , Rustam Kovhaev , Andrew Morton , Josh Triplett , Arnd Bergmann , Russell King , Alexander Shiyan , Aaro Koskinen , Janusz Krzysztofik , Tony Lindgren , Yoshinori Sato , Rich Felker , Jonas Bonn , Stefan Kristiansson , Stafford Horne , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Geert Uytterhoeven , Conor.Dooley@microchip.com, Paul Cercueil References: <93079aba-362e-5d1e-e9b4-dfe3a84da750@opensource.wdc.com> <44da078c-b630-a249-bf50-67df83cd8347@suse.cz> <35650fd4-3152-56db-7c27-b9997e31cfc7@opensource.wdc.com> <97c0735c-3127-83d5-30ff-8e57c6634f6e@opensource.wdc.com> <452c3833-9275-37c7-3d48-5c996c0e2557@suse.cz> From: Damien Le Moal Organization: Western Digital Research In-Reply-To: <452c3833-9275-37c7-3d48-5c996c0e2557@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1669005057; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=sLw31M3pWvSEl68CTHKiH27b9UPEFyZBo3W9Gfu+KcXsrQVoRtyCMrD+d7BiMXs9RN4Pyz PJ9m+wU/mfE+a4c04wKNq3k8ckyvaPhbPmvZGKVmums209KlwLU36Z6OK4JtSKmsqfMLDj sC7eIiZF7o7PFHrUCDONJEpbKoIl8Rw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf26.hostedemail.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=wdc.com header.s=dkim.wdc.com header.b="ZjL/q9KE"; dkim=pass header.d=opensource.wdc.com header.s=dkim header.b=DX8VtzDJ; spf=pass (imf26.hostedemail.com: domain of "prvs=31756d3e3=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com" designates 68.232.141.245 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="prvs=31756d3e3=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com"; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=opensource.wdc.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1669005057; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=YZkUpyjwGaRYZTO/Fr5AJz/X9fyUlkXJ0bjY/xpXvSo=; b=kK+0ih/eKmSv867Zq9y+n91rtp4N7ybKH5gh/MvsiJ82lI54obEzoKMcQJvT8tVN6jIf4J J4UsjPpLPkLb4Ci7dcBzGCPHGj6/TJNLEhNkTA0WoJ1cH2uoRVZaJse6QB/SM+J6pMUdXb FVcuNTvUaSO29nREOr0VUgRci67iuec= Authentication-Results: imf26.hostedemail.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=wdc.com header.s=dkim.wdc.com header.b="ZjL/q9KE"; dkim=pass header.d=opensource.wdc.com header.s=dkim header.b=DX8VtzDJ; spf=pass (imf26.hostedemail.com: domain of "prvs=31756d3e3=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com" designates 68.232.141.245 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="prvs=31756d3e3=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com"; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=opensource.wdc.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 06B07140005 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: gdwm85qiun14h3oj4dmjjc9dhw8g4zs4 X-HE-Tag: 1669005056-659548 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 11/17/22 02:51, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 11/15/22 05:24, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 11/14/22 23:47, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 08:35:31PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >>>> On 11/14/22 18:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>>>> On 11/14/22 06:48, Damien Le Moal wrote: >>>>>> On 11/14/22 10:55, Damien Le Moal wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/12/22 05:46, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:33:30AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/8/22 22:44, Pasha Tatashin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:55 AM Vlastimil Babka 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/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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Turns out that since SLOB depends on EXPERT, many of those lack it so >>>>>>>>> running make defconfig ends up with SLUB anyway, unless I miss something. >>>>>>>>> Only a subset has both SLOB and EXPERT: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> git grep CONFIG_EXPERT `git grep -l "CONFIG_SLOB=y"` >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> arch/riscv/configs/nommu_virt_defconfig:CONFIG_EXPERT=y >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suppose there's not really a concern with the virt defconfig, but I >>>>>>>> did check the output of `make nommu_k210_defconfig" and despite not >>>>>>>> having expert it seems to end up CONFIG_SLOB=y in the generated .config. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do have a board with a k210 so I checked with s/SLOB/SLUB and it still >>>>>>>> boots etc, but I have no workloads or w/e to run on it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I sent a patch to change the k210 defconfig to using SLUB. However... >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>>>> The current default config using SLOB gives about 630 free memory pages >>>>>>> after boot (cat /proc/vmstat). Switching to SLUB, this is down to about >>>>>>> 400 free memory pages (CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL is off). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the testing! How much RAM does the system have btw? I found 8MB >>>>> somewhere, is that correct? >>>> >>>> Yep, 8MB, that's it. >>>> >>>>> So 230 pages that's a ~920 kB difference. Last time we saw less dramatic >>>>> difference [1]. But that was looking at Slab pages, not free pages. The >>>>> extra overhead could be also in percpu allocations, code etc. >>>>> >>>>>>> This is with a buildroot kernel 5.19 build including a shell and sd-card >>>>>>> boot. With SLUB, I get clean boots and a shell prompt as expected. But I >>>>>>> definitely see more errors with shell commands failing due to allocation >>>>>>> failures for the shell process fork. So as far as the K210 is concerned, >>>>>>> switching to SLUB is not ideal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would not want to hold on kernel mm improvements because of this toy >>>>>>> k210 though, so I am not going to prevent SLOB deprecation. I just wish >>>>>>> SLUB itself used less memory :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Did further tests with kernel 6.0.1: >>>>>> * SLOB: 630 free pages after boot, shell working (occasional shell fork >>>>>> failure happen though) >>>>>> * SLAB: getting memory allocation for order 7 failures on boot already >>>>>> (init process). Shell barely working (high frequency of shell command fork >>>>>> failures) >>>> >>>> I forgot to add here that the system was down to about 500 free pages >>>> after boot (again from the shell with "cat /proc/vmstat"). >>>> >>>>>> * SLUB: getting memory allocation for order 7 failures on boot. I do get a >>>>>> shell prompt but cannot run any shell command that involves forking a new >>>>>> process. >>>> >>>> For both slab and slub, I had cpu partial off, debug off and slab merge >>>> on, as I suspected that would lead to less memory overhead. >>>> I suspected memory fragmentation may be an issue but doing >>>> >>>> echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches >>>> >>>> before trying a shell command did not help much at all (it usually does on >>>> that board with SLOB). Note that this is all with buildroot, so this echo >>>> & redirect always works as it does not cause a shell fork. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So if we want to keep the k210 support functional with a shell, we need >>>>>> slob. If we reduce that board support to only one application started as >>>>>> the init process, then I guess anything is OK. >>>>> >>>>> In [1] it was possible to save some more memory with more tuning. Some of >>>>> that required boot parameters and other code changes. In another reply [2] I >>>>> considered adding something like SLUB_TINY to take care of all that, so >>>>> looks like it would make sense to proceed with that. >>>> >>>> If you want me to test something, let me know. >>> >>> Would you try this please? >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c >>> index a24b71041b26..1c36c4b9aaa0 100644 >>> --- a/mm/slub.c >>> +++ b/mm/slub.c >>> @@ -4367,9 +4367,7 @@ static int kmem_cache_open(struct kmem_cache *s, slab_flags_t flags) >>> * The larger the object size is, the more slabs we want on the partial >>> * list to avoid pounding the page allocator excessively. >>> */ >>> - s->min_partial = min_t(unsigned long, MAX_PARTIAL, ilog2(s->size) / 2); >>> - s->min_partial = max_t(unsigned long, MIN_PARTIAL, s->min_partial); >>> - >>> + s->min_partial = 0; >>> set_cpu_partial(s); >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA >>> >>> >>> and booting with and without boot parameter slub_max_order=0? >> >> Test notes: I used Linus 6.1-rc5 as the base. That is the only thing I >> changed in buildroot default config for the sipeed maix bit card, booting >> with SD card. The test is: booting and run "cat /proc/vmstat" and register >> the nr_free_pages value. I repeated the boot + cat 3 to 4 times for each case. >> >> Here are the results: >> >> 6.1-rc5, SLOB: >> - 623 free pages >> - 629 free pages >> - 629 free pages >> 6.1-rc5, SLUB: >> - 448 free pages >> - 448 free pages >> - 429 free pages >> 6.1-rc5, SLUB + slub_max_order=0: >> - Init error, shell prompt but no shell command working >> - Init error, no shell prompt >> - 508 free pages >> - Init error, shell prompt but no shell command working >> 6.1-rc5, SLUB + patch: >> - Init error, shell prompt but no shell command working >> - 433 free pages >> - 448 free pages >> - 423 free pages >> 6.1-rc5, SLUB + slub_max_order=0 + patch: >> - Init error, no shell prompt >> - Init error, shell prompt, 499 free pages >> - Init error, shell prompt but no shell command working >> - Init error, no shell prompt >> >> No changes for SLOB results, expected. >> >> For default SLUB, I did get all clean boots this time and could run the >> cat command. But I do see shell fork failures if I keep running commands. >> >> For SLUB + slub_max_order=0, I only got one clean boot with 508 free >> pages. Remaining runs failed to give a shell prompt or allow running cat >> command. For the clean boot, I do see higher number of free pages. >> >> SLUB with the patch was nearly identical to SLUB without the patch. >> >> And SLUB+patch+slub_max_order=0 gave again a lot of errors/bad boot. I >> could run the cat command only once, giving 499 free pages, so better than >> regular SLUB. But it seems that the memory is more fragmented as >> allocations fail more often. >> >> Hope this helps. Let me know if you want to test something else. > > Could you please try this branch with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY=y? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vbabka/linux.git/log/?h=slub-tiny-v1r0 > > Seeing your results I didn't modify default slub_max_order by this new > CONFIG (yet?) so maybe after trying the default, trying then also with > manual slub_max_order=0 and slub_max_order=1 would be useful too. Otherwise > it should be all changes to lower SLUB memory footprint. Hopefully it will > be visible in the number of free pages. But if fragmentation is an issue, it > might not be enough. BTW, during boot there should be a line "Built X > zonelists, mobility grouping ..." can you grep for it and provide please, I > wonder if mobility grouping ends up being off or on on that system. I ran your branch with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY=y. Here are the results with 3-4 runs per config: * tiny slub with default slub_max_order: - Clean boot, 579 free pages - Clean boot, 575 free pages - Clean boot, 579 free pages * tiny slub with slub_max_order=0 as boot argument: - Init error, shell prompt but no shell command working - Init error, shell prompt, 592 free pages - Init error, shell prompt, 591 free pages - Init error, shell prompt, 591 free pages * tiny slub with slub_max_order=1 as boot argument: - Clean boot, 601 free pages - Clean boot, 601 free pages - Clean boot, 591 free pages - Clean boot, 601 free pages For all cases, mobility grouping was reported as off: [ 0.000000] Built 1 zonelists, mobility grouping off. Total pages: 2020 So it looks like your tiny slub branch with slub_max_order=1 puts us almost on par with slob and that slub_max_order=0 seems to be generating more fragmentation leading to unreliable boot. I also tried slub_max_order=2, which gives clean boot and around 582 free pages, almost the same as the default. With this branch applied, I have no issues with having slob deprecated :) Thanks ! > > Thanks! > >> Cheers. >> > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research