Some review here. I think we could do much better..
* Christoph Lameter ([email protected]) wrote:
> Index: linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1.orig/mm/slub.c 2007-07-09 15:04:46.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/mm/slub.c 2007-07-09 17:09:00.000000000 -0700
> @@ -1467,12 +1467,14 @@ static void *__slab_alloc(struct kmem_ca
> {
> void **object;
> struct page *new;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> if (!c->page)
> goto new_slab;
>
> slab_lock(c->page);
> - if (unlikely(!node_match(c, node)))
> + if (unlikely(!node_match(c, node) || c->freelist))
> goto another_slab;
> load_freelist:
> object = c->page->freelist;
> @@ -1486,7 +1488,14 @@ load_freelist:
> c->page->inuse = s->objects;
> c->page->freelist = NULL;
> c->node = page_to_nid(c->page);
> +out:
> slab_unlock(c->page);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + preempt_enable();
> +
> + if (unlikely((gfpflags & __GFP_ZERO)))
> + memset(object, 0, c->objsize);
> +
> return object;
>
> another_slab:
> @@ -1527,6 +1536,8 @@ new_slab:
> c->page = new;
> goto load_freelist;
> }
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + preempt_enable();
> return NULL;
> debug:
> c->freelist = NULL;
> @@ -1536,8 +1547,7 @@ debug:
>
> c->page->inuse++;
> c->page->freelist = object[c->offset];
> - slab_unlock(c->page);
> - return object;
> + goto out;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1554,23 +1564,20 @@ static void __always_inline *slab_alloc(
> gfp_t gfpflags, int node, void *addr)
> {
> void **object;
> - unsigned long flags;
> struct kmem_cache_cpu *c;
>
What if we prefetch c->freelist here ? I see in this diff that the other
code just reads it sooner as a condition for the if().
> - local_irq_save(flags);
> + preempt_disable();
> c = get_cpu_slab(s, smp_processor_id());
> - if (unlikely(!c->page || !c->freelist ||
> - !node_match(c, node)))
> +redo:
> + object = c->freelist;
> + if (unlikely(!object || !node_match(c, node)))
> + return __slab_alloc(s, gfpflags, node, addr, c);
>
> - object = __slab_alloc(s, gfpflags, node, addr, c);
> + if (cmpxchg_local(&c->freelist, object, object[c->offset]) != object)
> + goto redo;
>
> - else {
> - object = c->freelist;
> - c->freelist = object[c->offset];
> - }
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> -
> - if (unlikely((gfpflags & __GFP_ZERO) && object))
> + preempt_enable();
> + if (unlikely((gfpflags & __GFP_ZERO)))
> memset(object, 0, c->objsize);
>
> return object;
> @@ -1603,7 +1610,9 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cach
> {
> void *prior;
> void **object = (void *)x;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> slab_lock(page);
>
> if (unlikely(SlabDebug(page)))
> @@ -1629,6 +1638,8 @@ checks_ok:
>
> out_unlock:
> slab_unlock(page);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + preempt_enable();
> return;
>
> slab_empty:
> @@ -1639,6 +1650,8 @@ slab_empty:
> remove_partial(s, page);
>
> slab_unlock(page);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + preempt_enable();
> discard_slab(s, page);
> return;
>
> @@ -1663,18 +1676,31 @@ static void __always_inline slab_free(st
> struct page *page, void *x, void *addr)
> {
> void **object = (void *)x;
> - unsigned long flags;
> struct kmem_cache_cpu *c;
> + void **freelist;
>
Prefetching c->freelist would also make sense here.
> - local_irq_save(flags);
> + preempt_disable();
> c = get_cpu_slab(s, smp_processor_id());
> - if (likely(page == c->page && c->freelist)) {
> - object[c->offset] = c->freelist;
> - c->freelist = object;
> - } else
> - __slab_free(s, page, x, addr, c->offset);
> +redo:
> + freelist = c->freelist;
I suspect this smp_rmb() may be the cause of a major slowdown.
Therefore, I think we should try taking a copy of c->page and simply
check if it has changed right after the cmpxchg_local:
page = c->page;
> + /*
> + * Must read freelist before c->page. If a interrupt occurs and
> + * changes c->page after we have read it here then it
> + * will also have changed c->freelist and the cmpxchg will fail.
> + *
> + * If we would have checked c->page first then the freelist could
> + * have been changed under us before we read c->freelist and we
> + * would not be able to detect that situation.
> + */
> + smp_rmb();
> + if (unlikely(page != c->page || !freelist))
> + return __slab_free(s, page, x, addr, c->offset);
> +
> + object[c->offset] = freelist;
-> + if (cmpxchg_local(&c->freelist, freelist, object) != freelist)
+> + if (cmpxchg_local(&c->freelist, freelist, object) != freelist
|| page != c->page)
> + goto redo;
>
Therefore, in the scenario where:
1 - c->page is read
2 - Interrupt comes, changes c->page and c->freelist
3 - c->freelist is read
4 - cmpxchg c->freelist succeeds
5 - Then, page != c->page, so we goto redo.
It also works if 4 and 5 are swapped.
I could test the modification if you point to me which kernel version it
should apply to. However, I don't have the same hardware you use.
By the way, the smp_rmb() barrier does not make sense with the comment.
If it is _really_ protecting against reordering wrt interrupts, then it
should be a rmb(), not smp_rmb() (because it will be reordered on UP).
But I think the best would just be to work without rmb() at all, as
proposed here.
Mathieu
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> + preempt_enable();
> }
>
> void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
- Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance and maintenance
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
