On 01/09/2013 07:38 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> I disagree with you, because I don't see the trade-off as being so
>> simple, for two main reasons.
>
> The problem is that many people do this kind of tradeoff every year and so
> the additional logic accumulates in the hot paths which leads to gradual
> decay of allocator performance. It is possible to put
> this into the slow path for this round and so lets do it.
>
>> First, the logic of retrying is largely independent of the allocator,
>> and doing it in this level of abstraction allow us to move it to common
>> code as soon as we can. All the allocation decisions can be kept
>> internal to the underlying allocator, and we act only on the very high
>> level.
>
> Right now you have separate patches for the allocators. There is also a
> way to abstract this in a different way: Both allocators have special
> functions to deal with OOM conditions. This could be put into
> slab_common.c too to have unified reporting of OOM conditionns and unified
> fallback handling.
I will certainly look into that. But I still fear that regardless of
what we do here, the logic is still "retry the whole thing again". We
already know there is no free page, and without inspecting the internals
of the allocator it is hard to know where to start looking - therefore,
we need to retry from the start.
If it fails again, we will recurse to the same oom state. This means we
need to keep track of the state, at least, in which retry we are. If I
can keep it local, fine, I will argue no further. But if this state
needs to spread throughout the other paths, I think we have a lot more
to lose.
But as I said, I haven't tried this, I have only a rudimentary mental
image about it. I'll look into that, and let you know.
>
>> I can measure it as much as you want, but I can pretty much guarantee
>> you that the cost is near zero. The hot path, which is, when the
>
> I hear the same argument every time around.
>
>> Now, I agree with you, because I now see I missed one detail: those
>> functions are all marked as __always_inline. Which means that we will
>> double the code size in every allocation, for every single case. So this
>> is bad. But it is also very easy to fix: We can have a noinline function
>> that calls the allocator function, and we call that function instead -
>> with proper comments.
>
> There is a reason these functions are inline because the inlining allows
> code generation for special cases (like !NUMA) to have optimized code.
>
Of course they are, and I am not proposing to make the allocator
functions non inline.
kmem_cache_alloc keeps being inline. It calls do_cache_alloc, that keeps
being inline. And upon retry, we call non_inline_cache_alloc, which is
basically just:
static noinline non_inline_cache_alloc(...)
{
if (should_we_retry)
return do_cache_alloc(...)
}
This way the hot path is still inlined. The retry path, is not. And the
impact on the inlined path is just a couple of instructions. Precisely,
three: cmp, jne, call.
--
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>