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 mail.librecores.org (lists.librecores.org [88.198.125.70]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682DDC433FE for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 05:48:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.31.1.100] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.librecores.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5762F2133D; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 06:48:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from esa1.hgst.iphmx.com (esa1.hgst.iphmx.com [68.232.141.245]) by mail.librecores.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B6FC2132A for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 06:48:45 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wdc.com; i=@wdc.com; q=dns/txt; s=dkim.wdc.com; t=1668404926; x=1699940926; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:from:to:cc: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v1sR2mwFH9dmYdHzu0koJ50qxkQ0XF8GxeWMZxBQMlk=; b=jMkEt+pDZuBlUCxqTNc5T6qoTx19y4mjUX7BKPSUxHR9UyKyBWG6Apph QzL27V//Y7u8iGSesUnLJs036NGkdL31FFuE8lD4Er59WbejSieSMp58r oRq47uTE8eMr3IVj8gBMkV2Rr6/hl4ReArlBZoy2PWFUYXGSkr3w67DoX OyEmzt9UT7aT7tCaLFVK48JkguBIxyqlvk+YHdrRHiGFIi4s3WA33X8ya Q+G/uTjeMIoyfCFSP/f8q0mxm3ZFKxUzc6u19AfveCYP6DaMJ6paVxvxL t+Dy3DPA84Ni8Cd6/sHXiiqcTO/cPvmMZ7EYQc9NhcyRIji/1IA9OJJVY Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,161,1665417600"; d="scan'208";a="328292707" Received: from h199-255-45-14.hgst.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep01.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.14]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2022 13:48:39 +0800 IronPort-SDR: 0IMAAoOuptqKuCY1KoRCH4HRE9sXsyXIYKbiltTVtMG4R1VYVzemaP9vz5JRjSYgZKeV4scauN Bt8DTVt0x9OCwWVvTteZp8J4hoidhxUYdu+XafcQ7PWDs4KqLYnLyRlOX5P2Yq/eY4T3ymMNDK 936EgyefsperOsDX1eL1EibWvxc9bPqz5HHBtF5cVA/zRb9hFvhhQdkOYwrLFryjj0l6PHhZhD ndnZQzomHkNlaOYWhVvEPkKPctI4ODQO/XdzZukLg352Wz/r+vpI2e2fA0O1wstT8cKZfdFtTR /ak= Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com ([10.248.3.37]) by uls-op-cesaep01.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 13 Nov 2022 21:07:38 -0800 IronPort-SDR: VnzT/+Qg4hWZ78nOs8nbwEBwJ9a5bt2Rd1yjFED8LIY3I6UwDUbTMqCcW/y5jHSRi82tJxEcms VIYa9+mXirTVag++FHU2AVl+wgqXfhwgFOLsNA11FuXPkxltAc0MWQZuYWJwP4DKyAXVTIQDpq ZTx051zeu70Y4MBm2Nws2iGwlJLoa8So2NMD8ZoB5rG659TQ9C36IwIhoEy2PJHNvi0IdhCfX3 STNa2M5ck6kBY8N0iMjtQ2QWhHgVi45Q91wpwmcQ96ja9gmHUCTk9b9sBrh5264X16wH5keJXW WWQ= WDCIronportException: Internal Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([10.3.10.180]) by uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 13 Nov 2022 21:48:40 -0800 Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com [127.0.0.1]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N9ddz2XhTz1RvTr for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 21:48:39 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=opensource.wdc.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d= opensource.wdc.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :in-reply-to:organization:references:to:from:content-language :subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id; s=dkim; t= 1668404917; x=1670996918; bh=v1sR2mwFH9dmYdHzu0koJ50qxkQ0XF8GxeW MZxBQMlk=; b=Jj+OgXCgQLjiUSHdOF9I6MrgaqryVIX7t3nKyq6ZmaxCJrCDf+D tGBRwgMUBBGTq4WU22kKDQ58BiVzcFr1xRFoFfI1n8Bxo5+TB1XvlNxdODgFNzfR jI637Q7j4BNG1aLfH2JTTKH2lh843Eo9/6TImWIKH46gMtBWsZjKCoxGm9Oozafp gcs1atYVDBJpU4XwoYUztHkasGYGgZWrc/JjNE7l3NWvxCnS7nVLlm25abnZU+4P jNICFUVM5vo+y+8k+C+JC5BZmVgZ8TARD4EmnhnyFopFQzr/VUu1urRgOa3vVo3h xfnBECv6draKEFEd/vChz733S2WF8QS+58w== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([127.0.0.1]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id etKHmY3ZlURi for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 21:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.225.163.46] (unknown [10.225.163.46]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4N9ddp5cqHz1RvLy; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 21:48:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <93079aba-362e-5d1e-e9b4-dfe3a84da750@opensource.wdc.com> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:48:29 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1 Subject: Re: Deprecating and removing SLOB Content-Language: en-US From: Damien Le Moal To: Conor Dooley , Vlastimil Babka References: Organization: Western Digital Research In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: openrisc@lists.librecores.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion around the OpenRISC processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Rich Felker , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren , Catalin Marinas , Roman Gushchin , Paul Cercueil , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Conor.Dooley@microchip.com, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, Christoph Lameter , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Jonas Bonn , Yoshinori Sato , Aaro Koskinen , Janusz Krzysztofik , Russell King , Matthew Wilcox , David Rientjes , Pasha Tatashin , Arnd Bergmann , Josh Triplett , openrisc@lists.librecores.org, Joonsoo Kim , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Alexander Shiyan , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rustam Kovhaev , Pekka Enberg , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Errors-To: openrisc-bounces@lists.librecores.org Sender: "OpenRISC" On 11/14/22 10:55, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 11/12/22 05:46, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:33:30AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> On 11/8/22 22:44, Pasha Tatashin wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:55 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> as we all know, we currently have three slab allocators. As we discussed >>>>> at LPC [1], it is my hope that one of these allocators has a future, and >>>>> two of them do not. >>>>> >>>>> The unsurprising reasons include code maintenance burden, other features >>>>> compatible with only a subset of allocators (or more effort spent on the >>>>> features), blocking API improvements (more on that below), and my >>>>> inability to pronounce SLAB and SLUB in a properly distinguishable way, >>>>> without resorting to spelling out the letters. >>>>> >>>>> I think (but may be proven wrong) that SLOB is the easier target of the >>>>> two to be removed, so I'd like to focus on it first. >>>>> >>>>> I believe SLOB can be removed because: >>>>> >>>>> - AFAIK nobody really uses it? It strives for minimal memory footprint >>>>> by putting all objects together, which has its CPU performance costs >>>>> (locking, lack of percpu caching, searching for free space...). I'm not >>>>> aware of any "tiny linux" deployment that opts for this. For example, >>>>> OpenWRT seems to use SLUB and the devices these days have e.g. 128MB >>>>> RAM, not up to 16 MB anymore. I've heard anecdotes that the performance >>>>> SLOB impact is too much for those who tried. Googling for >>>>> "CONFIG_SLOB=y" yielded nothing useful. >>>> >>>> I am all for removing SLOB. >>>> >>>> There are some devices with configs where SLOB is enabled by default. >>>> Perhaps, the owners/maintainers of those devices/configs should be >>>> included into this thread: >>>> >>>> tatashin@soleen:~/x/linux$ git grep SLOB=y >> >>>> arch/riscv/configs/nommu_k210_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y >>>> arch/riscv/configs/nommu_k210_sdcard_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y >>>> arch/riscv/configs/nommu_virt_defconfig:CONFIG_SLOB=y >> >>> >>> Turns out that since SLOB depends on EXPERT, many of those lack it so >>> running make defconfig ends up with SLUB anyway, unless I miss something. >>> Only a subset has both SLOB and EXPERT: >>> >>>> git grep CONFIG_EXPERT `git grep -l "CONFIG_SLOB=y"` >> >>> arch/riscv/configs/nommu_virt_defconfig:CONFIG_EXPERT=y >> >> I suppose there's not really a concern with the virt defconfig, but I >> did check the output of `make nommu_k210_defconfig" and despite not >> having expert it seems to end up CONFIG_SLOB=y in the generated .config. >> >> I do have a board with a k210 so I checked with s/SLOB/SLUB and it still >> boots etc, but I have no workloads or w/e to run on it. > > I sent a patch to change the k210 defconfig to using SLUB. However... > > The current default config using SLOB gives about 630 free memory pages > after boot (cat /proc/vmstat). Switching to SLUB, this is down to about > 400 free memory pages (CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL is off). > > This is with a buildroot kernel 5.19 build including a shell and sd-card > boot. With SLUB, I get clean boots and a shell prompt as expected. But I > definitely see more errors with shell commands failing due to allocation > failures for the shell process fork. So as far as the K210 is concerned, > switching to SLUB is not ideal. > > I would not want to hold on kernel mm improvements because of this toy > k210 though, so I am not going to prevent SLOB deprecation. I just wish > SLUB itself used less memory :) Did further tests with kernel 6.0.1: * SLOB: 630 free pages after boot, shell working (occasional shell fork failure happen though) * SLAB: getting memory allocation for order 7 failures on boot already (init process). Shell barely working (high frequency of shell command fork failures) * SLUB: getting memory allocation for order 7 failures on boot. I do get a shell prompt but cannot run any shell command that involves forking a new process. So if we want to keep the k210 support functional with a shell, we need slob. If we reduce that board support to only one application started as the init process, then I guess anything is OK. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research