public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	travis@sgi.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	steiner@sgi.com, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Subject: Re: regarding the x86_64 zero-based percpu patches
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:55:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090115135518.GA9263@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200901151204.23208.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>


* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

> On Tuesday 13 January 2009 04:14:58 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > 2M of per cpu data doesn't make sense, and likely indicates a design
> > flaw somewhere.  It just doesn't make sense to have large amounts of
> > data allocated per cpu.
> > 
> > The most common user of per cpu data I am aware of is allocating one
> > word per cpu for counters.
> 
> This is why I did a brief audit.  Here it is:
> 
> With x86/32 allyesconfig (trimmed a little, until it booted under kvm) 
> we have 37148 bytes of static percpu data, and 117228 bytes of dynamic 
> percpu data.
> 
> File and line			Number		Size		Total
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1287		 21		2048		43008
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1290		 21		2048		43008
> kernel/workqueue.c:819		 72		 128		 9126
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1287		 48		 128		 6144
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1290		 48		 128		 6144
> net/ipv4/route.c:3258		  1		4096		 4096
> include/linux/genhd.h:271	 72		  40		 2880
> lib/percpu_counter.c:77		194		   4		  776
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1287		  1		 288		  288
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1290		  1		 288		  288
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1287		  1		 256		  256
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1290		  1		 256		  256
> net/core/neighbour.c:1424	  4		  44		  176
> kernel/kexec.c:1143		  1		 176		  176
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1287		  1		 104		  104
> net/ipv4/af_inet.c:1290		  1		 104		  104
> arch/x86/.../acpi-cpufreq.c:528	 96		   1		   96
> arch/x86/acpi/cstate.c:153	  1		  64		   64
> net/.../nf_conntrack_core.c:1209  1		  60		   60
> 
> Others:								  178
> 
> This is why my patch series adds "big_percpu_alloc" (basically identical 
> to current code) for the bigger/unbounded users.
> 
> I don't think moving per-cpu areas is going to fly.  We do put complex 
> datastructures in there. And you're going to need preempt_disable() on 
> all per-cpu ops on many archs to make it work (assuming you use 
> stop_machine to do the realloc.  Even a rough audit quickly becomes 
> overwhelming: 20 of the first 1/4 of DECLARE_PER_CPUs are non-movable 
> datastructures.

Why do we have to move them? Even on an allyesconfig the total ~150K size 
seems to be peanuts - compared to the ~+4MB CONFIG_MAXSMP .data/.bss 
bloat. I must be missing something ...

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-15 13:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <49649814.4040005@kernel.org>
     [not found] ` <20090107120225.GA30651@elte.hu>
2009-01-07 12:13   ` regarding the x86_64 zero-based percpu patches Tejun Heo
2009-01-10  6:46     ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-12 17:23       ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-12 17:44         ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-01-12 19:00           ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-13  0:33           ` Tejun Heo
2009-01-13  3:01             ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-01-13  3:14               ` Tejun Heo
2009-01-13  4:07                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-01-14  3:58                   ` Tejun Heo
2009-01-15  1:47                     ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-15  1:49                   ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-15 20:26                     ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-15  1:34           ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-15 13:55             ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-01-15 20:27             ` Christoph Lameter

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=20090115135518.GA9263@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=hugh@veritas.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=steiner@sgi.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=travis@sgi.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