Re: [RFC 1/3] zsmalloc: move pages_allocated to zs_pool

From: Sergey Senozhatsky
Date: Thu Aug 14 2014 - 09:05:00 EST

Next message: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: "Re: BUG: early intel microcode update violating alignment rules"
Previous message: edubezval@xxxxxxxxx: "Re: [PATCH 2/3] power_supply: Introduce PSE compliant algorithm"
In reply to: Dan Streetman: "Re: [RFC 1/3] zsmalloc: move pages_allocated to zs_pool"
Next in thread: Minchan Kim: "Re: [RFC 1/3] zsmalloc: move pages_allocated to zs_pool"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On (08/13/14 12:11), Dan Streetman wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
> >> > <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > On (08/13/14 09:59), Dan Streetman wrote:
> >> > >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > >> > Pages_allocated has counted in size_class structure and when user
> >> > >> > want to see total_size_bytes, it gathers all of value from each
> >> > >> > size_class to report the sum.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > It's not bad if user don't see the value often but if user start
> >> > >> > to see the value frequently, it would be not a good deal for
> >> > >> > performance POV.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > This patch moves the variable from size_class to zs_pool so it would
> >> > >> > reduce memory footprint (from [255 * 8byte] to [sizeof(atomic_t)])
> >> > >> > but it adds new locking overhead but it wouldn't be severe because
> >> > >> > it's not a hot path in zs_malloc(ie, it is called only when new
> >> > >> > zspage is created, not a object).
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Would using an atomic64_t without locking be simpler?
> >> > >
> >> > > it would be racy.
> >> >
> >> > oh. atomic operations aren't smp safe? is that because other
> >> > processors might use a stale value, and barriers must be added? I
> >> > guess I don't quite understand the value of atomic then. :-/
> >>
> >> pool not only set the value, it also read it and make some decisions
> >> based on that value:
> >>
> >> pages_allocated += X
> >> if (pages_allocated >= max_pages_allocated)
> >> return 0;
> >
>
> I'm missing where that is? I don't see that in this patch?
>
> >
> > I mean, suppose this happens on two CPUs
> >
> > max_pages_allocated is 10; current pages_allocated is 8. now you have 2 zs_malloc()
> > happenning on two CPUs. each of them will do `pages_allocated += 1'. the problem is
> > that both will see 10 at `if (pages_allocated >= max_pages_allocated)', so we will
> > fail 2 operations, while we only were supposed to fail one.
>
> Do you mean this from the 2/3 patch:

yeah. sorry for being unclear, I was really sleepy.

> @@ -946,6 +947,8 @@ unsigned long zs_malloc(struct zs_pool *pool, size_t size)
> set_zspage_mapping(first_page, class->index, ZS_EMPTY);
> spin_lock(&pool->stat_lock);
> pool->pages_allocated += class->pages_per_zspage;
> + if (pool->max_pages_allocated < pool->pages_allocated)
> + pool->max_pages_allocated = pool->pages_allocated;
> spin_unlock(&pool->stat_lock);
> spin_lock(&class->lock);
> }
>
> I see, yeah the max > allocated check before setting is easiest done
> with a spinlock. I think pages_allocated could still be done as
> atomic, just using atomic_add_return() to grab the current value to
> check against, but keeping them the same type and both protected by
> the same spinlock I guess simplifies things. Although, if they were
> both atomic, then the *only* place that would need a spinlock would be
> this check - reading the (atomic) max_pages_allocated wouldn't need a
> spinlock, nor would clearing it to 0.

makes sense.

-ss

> >> > >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > >> > ---
> >> > >> > mm/zsmalloc.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
> >> > >> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> >> > >> > index fe78189624cf..a6089bd26621 100644
> >> > >> > --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> >> > >> > +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> >> > >> > @@ -198,9 +198,6 @@ struct size_class {
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > spinlock_t lock;
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > - /* stats */
> >> > >> > - u64 pages_allocated;
> >> > >> > -
> >> > >> > struct page *fullness_list[_ZS_NR_FULLNESS_GROUPS];
> >> > >> > };
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > @@ -216,9 +213,12 @@ struct link_free {
> >> > >> > };
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > struct zs_pool {
> >> > >> > + spinlock_t stat_lock;
> >> > >> > +
> >> > >> > struct size_class size_class[ZS_SIZE_CLASSES];
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > gfp_t flags; /* allocation flags used when growing pool */
> >> > >> > + unsigned long pages_allocated;
> >> > >> > };
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > /*
> >> > >> > @@ -882,6 +882,7 @@ struct zs_pool *zs_create_pool(gfp_t flags)
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > }
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > + spin_lock_init(&pool->stat_lock);
> >> > >> > pool->flags = flags;
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > return pool;
> >> > >> > @@ -943,8 +944,10 @@ unsigned long zs_malloc(struct zs_pool *pool, size_t size)
> >> > >> > return 0;
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > set_zspage_mapping(first_page, class->index, ZS_EMPTY);
> >> > >> > + spin_lock(&pool->stat_lock);
> >> > >> > + pool->pages_allocated += class->pages_per_zspage;
> >> > >> > + spin_unlock(&pool->stat_lock);
> >> > >> > spin_lock(&class->lock);
> >> > >> > - class->pages_allocated += class->pages_per_zspage;
> >> > >> > }
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > obj = (unsigned long)first_page->freelist;
> >> > >> > @@ -997,14 +1000,14 @@ void zs_free(struct zs_pool *pool, unsigned long obj)
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > first_page->inuse--;
> >> > >> > fullness = fix_fullness_group(pool, first_page);
> >> > >> > -
> >> > >> > - if (fullness == ZS_EMPTY)
> >> > >> > - class->pages_allocated -= class->pages_per_zspage;
> >> > >> > -
> >> > >> > spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > - if (fullness == ZS_EMPTY)
> >> > >> > + if (fullness == ZS_EMPTY) {
> >> > >> > + spin_lock(&pool->stat_lock);
> >> > >> > + pool->pages_allocated -= class->pages_per_zspage;
> >> > >> > + spin_unlock(&pool->stat_lock);
> >> > >> > free_zspage(first_page);
> >> > >> > + }
> >> > >> > }
> >> > >> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(zs_free);
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > @@ -1100,12 +1103,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(zs_unmap_object);
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > u64 zs_get_total_size_bytes(struct zs_pool *pool)
> >> > >> > {
> >> > >> > - int i;
> >> > >> > - u64 npages = 0;
> >> > >> > -
> >> > >> > - for (i = 0; i < ZS_SIZE_CLASSES; i++)
> >> > >> > - npages += pool->size_class[i].pages_allocated;
> >> > >> > + u64 npages;
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > + spin_lock(&pool->stat_lock);
> >> > >> > + npages = pool->pages_allocated;
> >> > >> > + spin_unlock(&pool->stat_lock);
> >> > >> > return npages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> > >> > }
> >> > >> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(zs_get_total_size_bytes);
> >> > >> > --
> >> > >> > 2.0.0
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > --
> >> > >> > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> >> > >> > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
> >> > >> > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> >> > >> > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
>
--
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/

Next message: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: "Re: BUG: early intel microcode update violating alignment rules"
Previous message: edubezval@xxxxxxxxx: "Re: [PATCH 2/3] power_supply: Introduce PSE compliant algorithm"
In reply to: Dan Streetman: "Re: [RFC 1/3] zsmalloc: move pages_allocated to zs_pool"
Next in thread: Minchan Kim: "Re: [RFC 1/3] zsmalloc: move pages_allocated to zs_pool"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]