Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/slub: Introduce two counters for the partial objects

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Christopher,

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > I think we can just default to the counters. After all, if I
> > understood correctly, we're talking about up to 100 ms time period
> > with IRQs disabled when count_partial() is called. As this is
> > triggerable from user space, that's a performance bug whatever way you
> > look at it.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:02 PM Christopher Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well yes under extreme conditions and this is only happening for sysfs
> counter retrieval.

You will likely get some stall even in less extreme conditions, and in
any case, the kernel should not allow user space to trigger such a
stall.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:02 PM Christopher Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There could be other solutions to this. This solution here is penalizing
> evertu hotpath slab allocation for the sake of relatively infrequently
> used counter monitoring. There the possibility of not traversing the list
> ande simply estimating the value based on the number of slab pages
> allocated on that node.

Why do you consider this to be a fast path? This is all partial list
accounting when we allocate/deallocate a slab, no? Just like
___slab_alloc() says, I assumed this to be the slow path... What am I
missing?

No objections to alternative fixes, of course, but wrapping the
counters under CONFIG_DEBUG seems like just hiding the actual issue...

- Pekka




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux