On Fri, 2023-08-11 at 02:54 +0900, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 7:24 PM Jay Patel <jaypatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > In the current implementation of the slub memory allocator, the
> > slab
> > order selection process follows these criteria:
> >
> > 1) Determine the minimum order required to serve the minimum number
> > of
> > objects (min_objects). This calculation is based on the formula
> > (order
> > = min_objects * object_size / PAGE_SIZE).
> > 2) If the minimum order is greater than the maximum allowed order
> > (slub_max_order), set slub_max_order as the order for this slab.
> > 3) If the minimum order is less than the slub_max_order, iterate
> > through a loop from minimum order to slub_max_order and check if
> > the
> > condition (rem <= slab_size / fract_leftover) holds true. Here,
> > slab_size is calculated as (PAGE_SIZE << order), rem is (slab_size
> > %
> > object_size), and fract_leftover can have values of 16, 8, or 4. If
> > the condition is true, select that order for the slab.
> >
> >
> > However, in point 3, when calculating the fraction left over, it
> > can
> > result in a large range of values (like 1 Kb to 256 bytes on 4K
> > page
> > size & 4 Kb to 16 Kb on 64K page size with order 0 and goes on
> > increasing with higher order) when compared to the remainder (rem).
> > This
> > can lead to the selection of an order that results in more memory
> > wastage. To mitigate such wastage, we have modified point 3 as
> > follows:
> > To adjust the value of fract_leftover based on the page size, while
> > retaining the current value as the default for a 4K page size.
> >
> > Test results are as follows:
> >
> > 1) On 160 CPUs with 64K Page size
> >
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> > > Total wastage in slub memory |
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> > > | After Boot |After Hackbench |
> > > Normal | 932 Kb | 1812 Kb |
> > > With Patch | 729 Kb | 1636 Kb |
> > > Wastage reduce | ~22% | ~10% |
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> >
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> > > Total slub memory |
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> > > | After Boot | After Hackbench|
> > > Normal | 1855296 | 2944576 |
> > > With Patch | 1544576 | 2692032 |
> > > Memory reduce | ~17% | ~9% |
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> >
> > hackbench-process-sockets
> > +-------+-----+----------+----------+-----------+
> > > Amean | 1 | 1.2727 | 1.2450 | ( 2.22%) |
> > > Amean | 4 | 1.6063 | 1.5810 | ( 1.60%) |
> > > Amean | 7 | 2.4190 | 2.3983 | ( 0.86%) |
> > > Amean | 12 | 3.9730 | 3.9347 | ( 0.97%) |
> > > Amean | 21 | 6.9823 | 6.8957 | ( 1.26%) |
> > > Amean | 30 | 10.1867 | 10.0600 | ( 1.26%) |
> > > Amean | 48 | 16.7490 | 16.4853 | ( 1.60%) |
> > > Amean | 79 | 28.1870 | 27.8673 | ( 1.15%) |
> > > Amean | 110 | 39.8363 | 39.3793 | ( 1.16%) |
> > > Amean | 141 | 51.5277 | 51.4907 | ( 0.07%) |
> > > Amean | 172 | 62.9700 | 62.7300 | ( 0.38%) |
> > > Amean | 203 | 74.5037 | 74.0630 | ( 0.59%) |
> > > Amean | 234 | 85.6560 | 85.3587 | ( 0.35%) |
> > > Amean | 265 | 96.9883 | 96.3770 | ( 0.63%) |
> > > Amean | 296 | 108.6893 | 108.0870 | ( 0.56%) |
> > +-------+-----+----------+----------+-----------+
> >
> > 2) On 16 CPUs with 64K Page size
> >
> > +----------------+----------------+----------------+
> > > Total wastage in slub memory |
> > +----------------+----------------+----------------+
> > > | After Boot | After Hackbench|
> > > Normal | 273 Kb | 544 Kb |
> > > With Patch | 260 Kb | 500 Kb |
> > > Wastage reduce | ~5% | ~9% |
> > +----------------+----------------+----------------+
> >
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> > > Total slub memory |
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> > > | After Boot | After Hackbench|
> > > Normal | 275840 | 412480 |
> > > With Patch | 272768 | 406208 |
> > > Memory reduce | ~1% | ~2% |
> > +-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> >
> > hackbench-process-sockets
> > +-------+----+---------+---------+-----------+
> > > Amean | 1 | 0.9513 | 0.9250 | ( 2.77%) |
> > > Amean | 4 | 2.9630 | 2.9570 | ( 0.20%) |
> > > Amean | 7 | 5.1780 | 5.1763 | ( 0.03%) |
> > > Amean | 12 | 8.8833 | 8.8817 | ( 0.02%) |
> > > Amean | 21 | 15.7577 | 15.6883 | ( 0.44%) |
> > > Amean | 30 | 22.2063 | 22.2843 | ( -0.35%) |
> > > Amean | 48 | 36.0587 | 36.1390 | ( -0.22%) |
> > > Amean | 64 | 49.7803 | 49.3457 | ( 0.87%) |
> > +-------+----+---------+---------+-----------+
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jay Patel <jaypatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes from V3
> > 1) Resolved error and optimise logic for all arch
> >
> > Changes from V2
> > 1) removed all page order selection logic for slab cache base on
> > wastage.
> > 2) Increasing fraction size base on page size (keeping current
> > value
> > as default to 4K page)
> >
> > Changes from V1
> > 1) If min_objects * object_size > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER, then it
> > will return with PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER.
> > 2) Similarly, if min_objects * object_size < PAGE_SIZE, then it
> > will
> > return with slub_min_order.
> > 3) Additionally, I changed slub_max_order to 2. There is no
> > specific
> > reason for using the value 2, but it provided the best results in
> > terms of performance without any noticeable impact.
> >
> > mm/slub.c | 17 +++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index c87628cd8a9a..8f6f38083b94 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ static inline bool
> > kmem_cache_has_cpu_partial(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > #define OO_SHIFT 16
> > #define OO_MASK ((1 << OO_SHIFT) - 1)
> > #define MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE 32767 /* since slab.objects is u15
> > */
> > +#define SLUB_PAGE_FRAC_SHIFT 12
> >
> > /* Internal SLUB flags */
> > /* Poison object */
> > @@ -4117,6 +4118,7 @@ static inline int calculate_order(unsigned
> > int size)
> > unsigned int min_objects;
> > unsigned int max_objects;
> > unsigned int nr_cpus;
> > + unsigned int page_size_frac;
> >
> > /*
> > * Attempt to find best configuration for a slab. This
> > @@ -4145,10 +4147,13 @@ static inline int calculate_order(unsigned
> > int size)
> > max_objects = order_objects(slub_max_order, size);
> > min_objects = min(min_objects, max_objects);
> >
> > - while (min_objects > 1) {
> > + page_size_frac = ((PAGE_SIZE >> SLUB_PAGE_FRAC_SHIFT) == 1)
> > ? 0
> > + : PAGE_SIZE >> SLUB_PAGE_FRAC_SHIFT;
> > +
> > + while (min_objects >= 1) {
> > unsigned int fraction;
> >
> > - fraction = 16;
> > + fraction = 16 + page_size_frac;
> > while (fraction >= 4) {
>
> Sorry I'm a bit late for the review.
>
> IIRC hexagon/powerpc can have ridiculously large page sizes (1M or
> 256KB)
> (but I don't know if such config is actually used, tbh) so I think
> there should be
> an upper bound.
Hi,
I think that might not be required as arch with larger page size
will required larger fraction value as per this exit condition (rem <=
slab_size / fract_leftover) during calc_slab_order.
>
> > order = calc_slab_order(size, min_objects,
> > slub_max_order, fraction);
> > @@ -4159,14 +4164,6 @@ static inline int calculate_order(unsigned
> > int size)
> > min_objects--;
> > }
> > - /*
> > - * We were unable to place multiple objects in a slab. Now
> > - * lets see if we can place a single object there.
> > - */
> > - order = calc_slab_order(size, 1, slub_max_order, 1);
> > - if (order <= slub_max_order)
> > - return order;
>
> I'm not sure if it's okay to remove this?
> It was fine in v2 because the least wasteful order was chosen
> regardless of fraction but that's not true anymore.
>
Ok, So my though are like if single object in slab with slab_size =
PAGE_SIZE << slub_max_order and it wastage more then 1\4th of slab_size
then it's better to skip this part and use MAX_ORDER instead of
slub_max_order.
Could you kindly share your perspective on this part?
Tha
nks
Jay Patel
> Otherwise, everything looks fine to me. I'm too dumb to anticipate
> the outcome of increasing the slab order :P but this patch does not
> sound crazy to me.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Hyeonggon
