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 0F7BBC54798 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 03:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8C3B66B0074; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 874566B0078; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:55:37 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 73B116B007B; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:55:37 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6501A6B0074 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3300B40FCE for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 03:55:37 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81821704314.16.A3B8B69 Received: from gentwo.org (gentwo.org [62.72.0.81]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B51A0136 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 03:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=linux.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (imf25.hostedemail.com: 62.72.0.81 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of cl@linux.com) smtp.mailfrom=cl@linux.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1708660255; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=bQVwzgWCR7biSmAb5MWDnHzBBkrrs++PLv8RZ7RIyNM=; b=f4f8w3bk/kx9+7KW01vm1VIHxYr4hLmyadSRTNBZkgLcLe8Q3jpJT6dU58DaScif00lOZs v4KRtK1bh/ka40VORJ0ch+lGegOBoXmtuR2CdiiFtm3y7YkN4yg36/dVEb4qpV3qKK+Tob aTPAIzD7X1oxtlnkrCBviVWhqerKZgs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=linux.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (imf25.hostedemail.com: 62.72.0.81 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of cl@linux.com) smtp.mailfrom=cl@linux.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1708660255; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=aLwD6aCx8rjDIevbB+RDwVbf361ZQe0YVtkCu+gqLRDZGAzS/m6Gl8fcd6g6QRCF71su2i bhm7mev9d7q34GO9lR2H7i1sEmZtuYPrE7cJhDv8q+rYIHy1tOuwXC2bY2M0AsrPuGzxfP J8gwOhrQGkxBluXdL9LGxl0iEPGqDJA= Received: by gentwo.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 897B040AA8; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 19:50:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gentwo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A1840788; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 19:50:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 19:50:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" To: Chengming Zhou cc: Vlastimil Babka , David Rientjes , Jianfeng Wang , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: avoid scanning all partial slabs in get_slabinfo() In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20240215211457.32172-1-jianfeng.w.wang@oracle.com> <6b58d81f-8e8f-3732-a5d4-40eece75013b@google.com> <55ccc92a-79fa-42d2-97d8-b514cf00823b@linux.dev> <6daf88a2-84c2-5ba4-853c-c38cca4a03cb@linux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 17B51A0136 X-Stat-Signature: undhta37dxzhwj48wogzf51tzrb15o48 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1708660254-34427 X-HE-Meta: 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 IY1ijgWg 2rzFIiqJ/BbhNA+JlkTtR/4z+ekQ0hxGLeggMZVMFU2krDqm48u2Ad4OTcTM0XixYNm4Ez4MxJNJvUupYnTcXZs29JQm+8hrfavNLLGVnTLo6aGF84lC2ATAlGuzmZ2vELxmFNSFsCbn4oUIi2Lkd9G5GTgCfhtCsGH0xhVOhjals4O05VRz5t++UBm95sENMD5634kqzLghGnsOPgf5mYCrkhppugg73i23lglM6LWTm16HMSaCsSbBMlDh4Me2V21O1 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: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Chengming Zhou wrote: >> Can we guestimate the free objects based on the number of partial slabs. That number is available. > > Yeah, the number of partial slabs is easy to know, but I can't think of a way to > estimate the free objects, since __slab_free() is just double cmpxchg in most cases. Well a starting point may be half the objects possible in a slab page? >> How accurate need the accounting be? We also have fuzzy accounting in the VM counters. > > Maybe not need to be very accurate, some delay/fuzzy should be acceptable. > > Another direction I think is that we don't distinguish slabs on cpu partial list or > slabs on node partial list anymore (different with current behavior). > > Now we have three scopes: > 1. SL_ALL: include all slabs > 2. SL_PARTIAL: only include partial slabs on node > 3. SL_CPU: only include partail slabs on cpu and the using cpu slab > > If we change SL_PARTIAL to mean all partial slabs, it maybe simpler. Thats not going to work since you would have to scan multiple lists instead of a single list. Another approach may be to come up with some way to scan the partial lists without taking locks. That actually would improve the performance of the allocator. It may work with a single linked lists and RCU.