linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
To: 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>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: commit "slub: Acquire_slab() avoid loop" wrongly causes rest of partial slabs to be skipped?
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:52:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez1eBJrOTc-F9gA=7ebBd__R+Z7JZCoOHtWTkPvcvsaNtg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

The commit message of commit 7ced371971966 ("slub: Acquire_slab()
avoid loop") claims:

> Avoid the loop in acquire slab and simply fail if there is a conflict.
>
> This will cause the next page on the list to be considered.

However, get_partial_node() looks like this:

static void *get_partial_node(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n,
        struct kmem_cache_cpu *c, gfp_t flags)
{
  struct page *page, *page2;
  void *object = NULL;
  unsigned int available = 0;
  int objects;
[...]
  spin_lock(&n->list_lock);
  list_for_each_entry_safe(page, page2, &n->partial, slab_list) {
    void *t;
[...]
    t = acquire_slab(s, n, page, object == NULL, &objects);
    if (!t)
      break;
[...]
  }
  spin_unlock(&n->list_lock);
  return object;
}

So actually, if the cmpxchg() fails, we'll entirely bail out of
get_partial_node() and might, if the system isn't NUMA, fall back to
allocating more memory with new_slab()? That seems to me like it might
cause fragmented slabs to slowly use more memory than they should over
time.

Should the loop in get_partial_node() be using "continue" instead of
"break" in that case, so that the rest of the partial list will be
considered as the commit message claims?


             reply	other threads:[~2020-12-23 12:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-23 12:52 Jann Horn [this message]
2020-12-24  2:23 ` commit "slub: Acquire_slab() avoid loop" wrongly causes rest of partial slabs to be skipped? Joonsoo Kim

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='CAG48ez1eBJrOTc-F9gA=7ebBd__R+Z7JZCoOHtWTkPvcvsaNtg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@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).