From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] slub: default min_partial to at least highest cpus per node
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:54:38 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49DBAF7E.30704@cs.helsinki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904071231500.21113@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>>> Hmm, partial lists are per-node, so wouldn't it be better to do the
>>> adjustment for every struct kmem_cache_node separately? The
>>> 'min_partial_per_node' global seems just too ugly and confusing to live
>>> with.
>> Btw, that requires moving ->min_partial to struct kmem_cache_node from
>> struct kmem_cache. But I think that makes a whole lot of sense if
>> some nodes may have more CPUs than others.
>>
>> And while the improvement is kinda obvious, I would be interested to
>> know what kind of workload benefits from this patch (and see numbers
>> if there are any).
>>
>
> It doesn't really depend on the workload, it depends on the type of NUMA
> machine it's running on (and whether that NUMA is asymmetric amongst
> cpus).
>
> Since min_partial_per_node is capped at MAX_PARTIAL, this is only really
> relevant for remote node defragmentation if it's allowed (and not just 2%
> of the time like the default). We want to avoid stealing partial slabs
> from remote nodes if there are fewer than the number of cpus on that node.
>
> Otherwise, it's possible for each cpu on the victim node to try to
> allocate a single object and require nr_cpus_node(node) new slab
> allocations. In this case it's entirely possible for the majority of cpus
> to have cpu slabs from remote nodes. This change reduces the liklihood of
> that happening because we'll always have cpu slab replacements on our
> local partial list before allowing remote defragmentation.
>
> I'd be just as happy with the following, although it would require
> changing MIN_PARTIAL to be greater than its default of 5 if a node
> supports more cpus for optimal performance (the old patch did that
> automatically up to MAX_PARTIAL).
Hmm but why not move ->min_partial to struct kmem_cache_node as I
suggested and make sure it's adjusted properly as with nr_cpus_node()?
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1326,11 +1326,13 @@ static struct page *get_any_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags)
> zonelist = node_zonelist(slab_node(current->mempolicy), flags);
> for_each_zone_zonelist(zone, z, zonelist, high_zoneidx) {
> struct kmem_cache_node *n;
> + int node;
>
> - n = get_node(s, zone_to_nid(zone));
> + node = zone_to_nid(zone);
> + n = get_node(s, node);
>
> if (n && cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, flags) &&
> - n->nr_partial > s->min_partial) {
> + n->nr_partial > nr_cpus_node(node)) {
> page = get_partial_node(n);
> if (page)
> return page;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-07 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-06 0:52 [patch] slub: default min_partial to at least highest cpus per node David Rientjes
2009-04-07 18:58 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-04-07 19:09 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-04-07 19:44 ` David Rientjes
2009-04-07 19:54 ` Pekka Enberg [this message]
2009-04-07 20:09 ` David Rientjes
2009-04-07 20:11 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-04-07 20:22 ` David Rientjes
2009-04-07 20:35 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-04-07 20:43 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-07 20:48 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-04-07 21:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-07 21:46 ` David Rientjes
2009-04-07 21:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-07 22:03 ` David Rientjes
2009-04-13 18:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-07 22:01 ` David Rientjes
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=49DBAF7E.30704@cs.helsinki.fi \
--to=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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