Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: fix ALLOC_SLOWPATH stat

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, David Rientjes wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, David Rientjes wrote:
> 
> > > There used to be only one path out of __slab_alloc(), and
> > > ALLOC_SLOWPATH got bumped in that exit path.  Now there are two,
> > > and a bunch of gotos.  ALLOC_SLOWPATH can now get set more than once
> > > during a single call to __slab_alloc() which is pretty bogus.
> > > Here's the sequence:
> > > 
> > > 1. Enter __slab_alloc(), fall through all the way to the
> > >    stat(s, ALLOC_SLOWPATH);
> > > 2. hit 'if (!freelist)', and bump DEACTIVATE_BYPASS, jump to
> > >    new_slab (goto #1)
> > > 3. Hit 'if (c->partial)', bump CPU_PARTIAL_ALLOC, goto redo
> > >    (goto #2)
> > > 4. Fall through in the same path we did before all the way to
> > >    stat(s, ALLOC_SLOWPATH)
> > > 5. bump ALLOC_REFILL stat, then return
> > > 
> > > Doing this is obviously bogus.  It keeps us from being able to
> > > accurately compare ALLOC_SLOWPATH vs. ALLOC_FASTPATH.  It also
> > > means that the total number of allocs always exceeds the total
> > > number of frees.
> > > 
> > > This patch moves stat(s, ALLOC_SLOWPATH) to be called from the
> > > same place that __slab_alloc() is.  This makes it much less
> > > likely that ALLOC_SLOWPATH will get botched again in the
> > > spaghetti-code inside __slab_alloc().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> 
> Pekka, are you going to pick this up for linux-next?  I think it would be 
> nice to have for 3.14 for those of us who use the stats.
> 

Ping #2.  Pekka or Andrew, would you pick this up for linux-next?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/