Re: [PATCH] Cpuset: rcu optimization of page alloc hook

[Eric Dumazet]

Paul Jackson a écrit :
> Eric wrote:
>
> > If this variable is not frequently used, why then define its own cache ?
> >
> > Ie why not use kmalloc() and let kernel use a general cache ?
>
>
> This change from kmalloc() to a dedicated slab cache was made just a
> couple of days ago, at the suggestion of Andi Kleen and Nick Piggin, in
> order to optimize out a tasklock spinlock from the primary code path
> for allocating a page of memory.
>
> Indeed, this email thread is the thread that presented that patch.
>
> By using a dedicated slab cache, I was able to make an unusual use of
> Hugh Dicken's SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU implementation, and access a variable
> inside the cpuset structure safely, even after that cpuset structure
> might have been asynchronously free'd.  What I read from that variable
> might well be garbage, but at least the slab would not have freed that
> page of memory entirely, inside my rcu_read_lock section.

OK, I'm afraid I cannot comment on this, this is too complex for me :)

> Since all I needed was to edge trigger on the condition that the
> contents of a variable changed since last read, that was sufficient.
>
>
> > On a 32 CPUS machine, a kmem_create() costs a *lot* of ram.
>
>
> Hmmm ... if 32 is bad, then what does it cost for say 512 CPUs?

You dont want to know :)

struct kmem_cache  itself will be about 512*8 + some bytes
then for each cpu a 'struct array_cache' will be allocated (count 128 bytes 
minimum each, it depends on various factors (and sizeof(void*) of course)

So I would say about 80 K Bytes at a very minimum.

> And when is that memory required?  On many systems, that will have
> cpusets CONFIG_CPUSET enabled, but that are not using cpusets, just
> the kmem_cache_create() will be called to create cpuset_cache, but
> -no- kmem_cache_alloc() calls done.  On those systems using cpusets,
> there might be one 'struct cpuset' allocated per gigabyte of ram, as a
> rough idea.
>
> Can you quantify "costs a *lot* of ram" ?
>
> I suppose that I could add a little bit of logic that avoided the
> initial kmem_cache_create() until needed by actual cpuset usage on the
> system (on the first cpuset_create(), the first time that user code
> tries to create a cpuset).  In a related optimization, I might be able
> to avoid -even- the rcu_read_lock() guards on systems not using
> cpusets (never called cpuset_create() since boot), reducing that guard
> to a simple comparison of the current tasks cpuset pointer with the
> pointer to the one statically allocated global cpuset, known as the root
> cpuset.  Actually, that last opimization would benefit any task still
> in the root cpuset, even after other cpusets had been dynamically
> created.
>
> Or, if using the slab cache was still too expensive for this use, I
> could perhaps make a more conventional use of RCU, to guard the kfree()
> myself, instead of making this unusual use of SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.  I'd
> have to learn more about RCU to know how to do that, or even it made
> sense.

Thank you for this details.

Eric
-
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/