On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:51:06 +0900
js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
>
> To check whther free objects exist or not precisely, we need to grab a
^^^^^^
(spelling)
> lock. But, accuracy isn't that important because race window would be
> even small and if there is too much free object, cache reaper would reap
> it. So, this patch makes the check for free object exisistence not to
^^^^^^^^^^^
(spelling)
> hold a lock. This will reduce lock contention in heavily allocation case.
>
> Note that until now, n->shared can be freed during the processing by
> writing slabinfo, but, with some trick in this patch, we can access it
> freely within interrupt disabled period.
>
> Below is the result of concurrent allocation/free in slab allocation
> benchmark made by Christoph a long time ago. I make the output simpler.
> The number shows cycle count during alloc/free respectively so less is
> better.
I cannot figure out which if Christoph's tests you are using. And I
even have a copy of his test here:
https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/mm/slab_test.c
I think you need to describe the test a bit better...
Looking a long time at the output on my own system, I guess you are
showing results from the "Concurrent allocs". Then it would be
relevant how many CPUs your system have.
It would also be relevant to mention that N=10000. And perhaps mention
that it means, e.g all CPUs do N=10000 alloc concurrently, synchronize
before doing N free concurrently.
> * Before
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(32): Average=248/966
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(64): Average=261/949
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(128): Average=314/1016
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(256): Average=741/1061
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(512): Average=1246/1152
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(1024): Average=2437/1259
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(2048): Average=4980/1800
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(4096): Average=9000/2078
>
> * After
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(32): Average=344/792
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(64): Average=347/882
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(128): Average=390/959
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(256): Average=393/1067
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(512): Average=683/1229
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(1024): Average=1295/1325
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(2048): Average=2513/1664
> Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(4096): Average=4742/2172
>
> It shows that allocation performance decreases for the object size up to
> 128 and it may be due to extra checks in cache_alloc_refill(). But, with
> considering improvement of free performance, net result looks the same.
> Result for other size class looks very promising, roughly, 50% performance
> improvement.
Super nice performance boost. The numbers on my system are
significantly smaller, but this is a before/after test and the absolute
numbers are not that important.
Oh, maybe this was because I ran the test with SLUB... recompiling with
SLAB... and the results are comparable to your numbers (on my 8 core
i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz)
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>