Re: [PATCH v3 09/21] slab: add optimized sheaf refill from partial list

Vlastimil Babka
2026-01-19T10:54:21Z

On 1/19/26 07:41, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 03:40:29PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> At this point we have sheaves enabled for all caches, but their refill
>> is done via __kmem_cache_alloc_bulk() which relies on cpu (partial)
>> slabs - now a redundant caching layer that we are about to remove.
>>
>> The refill will thus be done from slabs on the node partial list.
>> Introduce new functions that can do that in an optimized way as it's
>> easier than modifying the __kmem_cache_alloc_bulk() call chain.
>>
>> Extend struct partial_context so it can return a list of slabs from the
>> partial list with the sum of free objects in them within the requested
>> min and max.
>>
>> Introduce get_partial_node_bulk() that removes the slabs from freelist
>> and returns them in the list.
>>
>> Introduce get_freelist_nofreeze() which grabs the freelist without
>> freezing the slab.
>>
>> Introduce alloc_from_new_slab() which can allocate multiple objects from
>> a newly allocated slab where we don't need to synchronize with freeing.
>> In some aspects it's similar to alloc_single_from_new_slab() but assumes
>> the cache is a non-debug one so it can avoid some actions.
>>
>> Introduce __refill_objects() that uses the functions above to fill an
>> array of objects. It has to handle the possibility that the slabs will
>> contain more objects that were requested, due to concurrent freeing of
>> objects to those slabs. When no more slabs on partial lists are
>> available, it will allocate new slabs. It is intended to be only used
>> in context where spinning is allowed, so add a WARN_ON_ONCE check there.
>>
>> Finally, switch refill_sheaf() to use __refill_objects(). Sheaves are
>> only refilled from contexts that allow spinning, or even blocking.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> ---
>> mm/slub.c | 284 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 264 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index 9bea8a65e510..dce80463f92c 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -3522,6 +3525,63 @@ static inline void put_cpu_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>> #endif
>> static inline bool pfmemalloc_match(struct slab *slab, gfp_t gfpflags);
>>
>> +static bool get_partial_node_bulk(struct kmem_cache *s,
>> + struct kmem_cache_node *n,
>> + struct partial_context *pc)
>> +{
>> + struct slab *slab, *slab2;
>> + unsigned int total_free = 0;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + /* Racy check to avoid taking the lock unnecessarily. */
>> + if (!n || data_race(!n->nr_partial))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pc->slabs);
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(slab, slab2, &n->partial, slab_list) {
>> + struct freelist_counters flc;
>> + unsigned int slab_free;
>> +
>> + if (!pfmemalloc_match(slab, pc->flags))
>> + continue;
>> + /*
>> + * determine the number of free objects in the slab racily
>> + *
>> + * due to atomic updates done by a racing free we should not
>> + * read an inconsistent value here, but do a sanity check anyway
>> + *
>> + * slab_free is a lower bound due to subsequent concurrent
>> + * freeing, the caller might get more objects than requested and
>> + * must deal with it
>> + */
>> + flc.counters = data_race(READ_ONCE(slab->counters));
>> + slab_free = flc.objects - flc.inuse;
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(slab_free > oo_objects(s->oo)))
>> + continue;
>
> When is this condition supposed to be true?
>
> I guess it's when __update_freelist_slow() doesn't update
> slab->counters atomically?

Yeah. Probably could be solvable with WRITE_ONCE() there, as this is only
about hypothetical read/write tearing, not seeing stale values. Or not? Just
wanted to be careful.

>> +
>> + /* we have already min and this would get us over the max */
>> + if (total_free >= pc->min_objects
>> + && total_free + slab_free > pc->max_objects)
>> + break;
>> +
>> + remove_partial(n, slab);
>> +
>> + list_add(&slab->slab_list, &pc->slabs);
>> +
>> + total_free += slab_free;
>> + if (total_free >= pc->max_objects)
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> + return total_free > 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Try to allocate a partial slab from a specific node.
>> */
>> +static unsigned int alloc_from_new_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>> + void **p, unsigned int count, bool allow_spin)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int allocated = 0;
>> + struct kmem_cache_node *n;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + void *object;
>> +
>> + if (!allow_spin && (slab->objects - slab->inuse) > count) {
>> +
>> + n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
>> +
>> + if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags)) {
>> + /* Unlucky, discard newly allocated slab */
>> + defer_deactivate_slab(slab, NULL);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + object = slab->freelist;
>> + while (object && allocated < count) {
>> + p[allocated] = object;
>> + object = get_freepointer(s, object);
>> + maybe_wipe_obj_freeptr(s, p[allocated]);
>> +
>> + slab->inuse++;
>> + allocated++;
>> + }
>> + slab->freelist = object;
>> +
>> + if (slab->freelist) {
>> +
>> + if (allow_spin) {
>> + n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> + }
>> + add_partial(n, slab, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> + }
>> +
>> + inc_slabs_node(s, slab_nid(slab), slab->objects);
>
> Maybe add a comment explaining why inc_slabs_node() doesn't need to be
> called under n->list_lock?

Hm, we might not even be holding it. The old code also did the inc with no
comment. If anything could use one, it would be in
alloc_single_from_new_slab()? But that's outside the scope here.

>> + return allocated;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Slow path. The lockless freelist is empty or we need to perform
>> * debugging duties.

>> +new_slab:
>> +
>> + slab = new_slab(s, pc.flags, node);
>> + if (!slab)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + stat(s, ALLOC_SLAB);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * TODO: possible optimization - if we know we will consume the whole
>> + * slab we might skip creating the freelist?
>> + */
>> + refilled += alloc_from_new_slab(s, slab, p + refilled, max - refilled,
>> + /* allow_spin = */ true);
>> +
>> + if (refilled < min)
>> + goto new_slab;
>
> It should jump to out: label when alloc_from_new_slab() returns zero
> (trylock failed).
>
> ...Oh wait, no. I was confused.
>
> Why does alloc_from_new_slab() handle !allow_spin case when it cannot be
> called if allow_spin is false?

The next patch will use it so it seemed easier to add it already. I'll note
in the commit log.

>> +out:
>> +
>> + return refilled;
>> +}
>