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 94630C43217 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 01:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.31.1.100] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.librecores.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEBF248E6; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 02:55:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from esa5.hgst.iphmx.com (esa5.hgst.iphmx.com [216.71.153.144]) by mail.librecores.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6AE220AC2 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 02:55:20 +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=1668390920; x=1699926920; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nyOFTXz3d9X6eMOZsmuYqPSZyAOtJSgUq3fJ16zqsqM=; b=Zkcz5ZOO/rrx2GvoM8GlIpt8fBBrIsg/iFT+Ao5sV4TB+17DFVNeTKDU bljRPDiApg2d5Qx9/Yjgn7IrjoHApC/fuT8fO4LDPy15n0TibTC3D3+cV 1BQdoxyTtZKmK9UgMEswvyFBmLGahCDc8tlwcGDatR4Xn7oLMZ7M7DY/a TP4Hifst7nAKDHTKcGwIqGdN89tGrrBirotvg32/AtOsJ3f1DqbJbWguA qmRPuy7rJUNx7Geihej7S5irVW61dCp4kkH2NWsTb2mjxBf9Xs2mFLHok V3Hj3rzCiD7voSXGZD6/4LutOHdsqnl/7FpY3PBDGknn3vCyaBVj+DcMp g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,161,1665417600"; d="scan'208";a="216180207" Received: from h199-255-45-15.hgst.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.15]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2022 09:55:18 +0800 IronPort-SDR: S10GL533gEMtxFMBAIZXB7p5Q9lVFC76AoG4kPqR9Mq3pObTwamiQ0WU2+mkpzFTXnNFFwGquA +3hwhkBXzq6KihKFz/g/bA4dRfGdemELAMfJGUKH5Ax1bSmCJpwncf6HsuqULwycNn2P6oUTYJ RhgXzC/k3bQKtDV/iNNqLrGFxZM6ootmdMuwnwgAVePBrWN3tnD1YmP9/cS+U+0n/qtCDKSE+j r8t79Yj9qqrqXQ91x9Hx6npfDZKSird9MNjtsnRC2cId5y2KZP9MzskQSMc+igWz+Gs4ZLCmiG qJE= Received: from uls-op-cesaip01.wdc.com ([10.248.3.36]) by uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 13 Nov 2022 17:08:33 -0800 IronPort-SDR: OslEYv3KyuaG7Yo0PUlQX5gdNqqFevP3keL+IP7MHkXnjhuy8casf0cvfR/UUDoEVRUInwdE8J n4ZJh4hZLz0fWW2r8AEqy1sroxKYdu7qMB/LyJYkBa2TM8O9eyYL9DwH6l3dhkB5jUBEGdwUIq nQjpAb07imcktAovTzNUQsFJnHcK+CSMwoo8Nv9/W5njJX1f+GW7mqgMK6v5Ae3X+UbPhBj97q 5YlrSpIZFpm/zvJTOHc0bWRuhIyNxGIvGYchA3TsZQDwe9dT10Dql9Vm343TEzsYPkdY9y0C0u 3sY= WDCIronportException: Internal Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([10.3.10.180]) by uls-op-cesaip01.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 13 Nov 2022 17:55:19 -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 4N9XSk1sr8z1RwtC for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 17:55:17 -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:from:references:to:content-language :subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id; s=dkim; t= 1668390916; x=1670982917; bh=nyOFTXz3d9X6eMOZsmuYqPSZyAOtJSgUq3f J16zqsqM=; b=B7FIG24k/AkrbPRlxTTp+YAyPl2DtgOB49NBmCF1uJe1rzavO/J NnzQvOw5y6jZvpQDwbtMGe43anknJxLtaNq6ye3vNETqunaV7aPGbWlB5yTcJneZ dep7KJ5wOdey9UA9pJO55QieVSkTNlBVhNgkyYu31fgMtYTbglkkIlf7pD0mZS9U TV2BXR5pUYz63ZjDo3FL0DtWJD6Q7xWT2ajGfhM6MNxiQ4WATwU3nDj6s5pOHaUi EtT3fitwsRCuczjPghjRbOWkaSka9UnIqihDhmL1YAsBAgEnAIKojathaHJVhQgy vt64Jcr8YksY1GcywsWLEhEhXqIrpmbW4JA== 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 v4YiWLt-w173 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 17:55:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.225.163.46] (unknown [10.225.163.46]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4N9XSY61WPz1RvLy; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 17:55:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:55:08 +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 To: Conor Dooley , Vlastimil Babka References: From: Damien Le Moal 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 11/12/22 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 :) -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research