Re: [patch 02/10] SLUB: slab defragmentation and kmem_cache_vacate

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>]

On Mon, 21 May 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:

> I know I brought up this "less than a quarter" thing before and I
> haven't thought of a better alternative. However, it occurs to be that
> shrink_slab() is called when there is awareness of a reclaim priority.
> It may be worth passing that down so that the fraction of candidates
> pages is calculated based on priority.

Hmmmm.. Yes I am thinking about that one too. Right now I have a system
that triggers reclaim every 10 seconds or after more than 100 objects have 
been reclaimed.
 
> That said..... where is kmem_cache_shrink() ever called? The freeing of
> slab pages seems to be indirect these days. Way back,
> kmem_cache_shrink() used to be called directly but I'm not sure where it
> happens now.

Well, this one only allows manual triggering. To my embarasasment I found 
that the kmem_cache_shrink calls for icache and dentries are only in 2.4. 
They have been removed in 2.6.X. I need to add them back to 2.6.

> >  /*
> > + * Order the freelist so that addresses increase as object are allocated.
> > + * This is useful to trigger the cpu cacheline prefetching logic.
> > + */
> 
> makes sense. However, it occurs to me that maybe this should be a
> separate patch so it can be measured to be sure. It makes sense though.

Ok.

> > +/*
> > + * Vacate all objects in the given slab.
> > + *
> > + * Slab must be locked and frozen. Interrupts are disabled (flags must
> > + * be passed).
> > + *
> 
> It may not hurt to have a VM_BUG_ON() if interrupts are still enabled when
> this is called

Well flags need to be passed and those flags are obtained via disabling 
interrupts.


> > +	/*
> > +	 * Got references. Now we can drop the slab lock. The slab
> > +	 * is frozen so it cannot vanish from under us nor will
> > +	 * allocations be performed on the slab. However, unlocking the
> > +	 * slab will allow concurrent slab_frees to proceed.
> > +	 */
> > +	slab_unlock(page);
> > +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> 
> I recognise that you want to restore interrupts as early as possible but
> it should be noted somewhere that kmem_cache_vacate() disables
> interrupts and __kmem_cache_vacate() enabled them again. I had to go
> searching to see where interrupts are enabled again.
> 
> Maybe even a slab_lock_irq() and slab_unlock_irq() would clarify things
> a little.

Hmmmm... Okay but this is a rare situation in SLUB. Regular slab 
operations always run with interrupts disabled.

> > +
> > +	vector = kmalloc(s->objects * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!vector)
> > +		return 0;
> 
> Is it worth logging this event, returning -ENOMEM or something so that
> callers are aware of why kmem_cache_vacate() failed in this instance?
> 
> Also.. we have called get_page_unless_zero() but if we are out of memory
> here, where have we called put_page()? Maybe we should be "goto out"
> here with a

Ahh. Thanks. Will fix that.

> > +	 * We are holding a lock on a slab page and all operations on the
> > +	 * slab are blocking.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!s->ops->get || !s->ops->kick)
> > +		goto out_locked;
> > +	freeze_from_list(s, page);
> > +	vacated = __kmem_cache_vacate(s, page, flags, vector) == 0;
> 
> That is a little funky looking. This may be nicer;
> 
> vacated = __kmem_cache_vacate(s, page, flags, vector);
> out:
> ...
> return vacated == 0;
> 

Right. Done.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/