From: Jianfeng Wang <jianfeng.w.wang@oracle.com>
To: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@linux.com>,
Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: avoid scanning all partial slabs in get_slabinfo()
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:36:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <93497e03-1acf-483e-8695-e103fd1bc044@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6daf88a2-84c2-5ba4-853c-c38cca4a03cb@linux.com>
On 2/22/24 7:02 PM, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I put the code below for discussion...
>
> Can we guestimate the free objects based on the number of partial slabs. That number is available.
>
Yes.
I've thought about calculating the average number of free objects in a
partial slab (through sampling) and then estimating the total number of
free objects as (avg * n->nr_partial).
See the following.
---
mm/slub.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 63d281dfacdb..13385761049c 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -2963,6 +2963,8 @@ static inline bool free_debug_processing(struct kmem_cache *s,
#endif /* CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG */
#if defined(CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG) || defined(SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS)
+#define MAX_PARTIAL_TO_SCAN 10000
+
static unsigned long count_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
int (*get_count)(struct slab *))
{
@@ -2971,8 +2973,22 @@ static unsigned long count_partial(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
struct slab *slab;
spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
- list_for_each_entry(slab, &n->partial, slab_list)
- x += get_count(slab);
+ if (n->nr_partial > MAX_PARTIAL_TO_SCAN) {
+ /* Estimate total count of objects via sampling */
+ unsigned long sample_rate = n->nr_partial / MAX_PARTIAL_TO_SCAN;
+ unsigned long scanned = 0;
+ unsigned long counted = 0;
+ list_for_each_entry(slab, &n->partial, slab_list) {
+ if (++scanned % sample_rate == 0) {
+ x += get_count(slab);
+ counted++;
+ }
+ }
+ x = mult_frac(x, n->nr_partial, counted);
+ } else {
+ list_for_each_entry(slab, &n->partial, slab_list)
+ x += get_count(slab);
+ }
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
return x;
}
--
> How accurate need the accounting be? We also have fuzzy accounting in the VM counters.
Based on my experience, for a |kmem_cache|, the total number of objects can tell
whether the |kmem_cache| has been heavily used by a workload. When the total
number is large: if the number of free objects is small, then either these objects
are really in-use or there is *memory leak* going on (which then must be further
diagnosed). However, if the number of free objects is large, we can only know
the slab memory fragmentation happens.
So, I think the object accounting needn't be accurate. We only have to tell
whether a large percentage of slab objects is free or not. The above code is a
sampling, which should do the job if we take enough samples.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-23 7:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-15 21:14 [PATCH] slub: avoid scanning all partial slabs in get_slabinfo() Jianfeng Wang
2024-02-18 19:25 ` David Rientjes
2024-02-19 8:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-02-19 9:29 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-02-19 10:17 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-02-22 13:20 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-02-23 3:02 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2024-02-23 3:36 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-02-23 3:50 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2024-02-23 5:00 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-02-23 9:24 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-02-23 9:37 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-02-23 9:46 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-02-23 9:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-02-26 17:38 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2024-02-27 9:30 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-02-27 22:55 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2024-02-28 9:51 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-03-14 0:38 ` Jianfeng Wang
2024-03-14 23:45 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2024-02-23 7:36 ` Jianfeng Wang [this message]
2024-02-23 9:17 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-02-20 18:41 ` Jianfeng Wang
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=93497e03-1acf-483e-8695-e103fd1bc044@oracle.com \
--to=jianfeng.w.wang@oracle.com \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=zhouchengming@bytedance.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).