On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On (08/14/14 00:13), Sergey Senozhatsky 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:
@@ -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.
>
> -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@xxxxxxxxx. 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, 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>