On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:57:09AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:15:25 +0900 > Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:48:26PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > This change focus on improving the speed of object freeing in the > > > "slowpath" of kmem_cache_free_bulk. > > > > > > The calls slab_free (fastpath) and __slab_free (slowpath) have been > > > extended with support for bulk free, which amortize the overhead of > > > the (locked) cmpxchg_double. > > > > > > To use the new bulking feature, we build what I call a detached > > > freelist. The detached freelist takes advantage of three properties: > > > > > > 1) the free function call owns the object that is about to be freed, > > > thus writing into this memory is synchronization-free. > > > > > > 2) many freelist's can co-exist side-by-side in the same slab-page > > > each with a separate head pointer. > > > > > > 3) it is the visibility of the head pointer that needs synchronization. > > > > > > Given these properties, the brilliant part is that the detached > > > freelist can be constructed without any need for synchronization. The > > > freelist is constructed directly in the page objects, without any > > > synchronization needed. The detached freelist is allocated on the > > > stack of the function call kmem_cache_free_bulk. Thus, the freelist > > > head pointer is not visible to other CPUs. > > > > > > All objects in a SLUB freelist must belong to the same slab-page. > > > Thus, constructing the detached freelist is about matching objects > > > that belong to the same slab-page. The bulk free array is scanned is > > > a progressive manor with a limited look-ahead facility. > [...] > > > > Hello, Jesper. > > > > AFAIK, it is uncommon to clear pointer to object in argument array. > > At least, it is better to comment it on somewhere. > > In this case, I think clearing the array is a good thing, as > using/referencing objects after they have been free'ed is a bug (which > can be hard to detect). Okay. > > > Or, how about removing lookahead facility? Does it have real benefit? > > In my earlier patch series I had a version with and without lookahead > facility. Just so I could benchmark the difference. With Alex'es help > we/I tuned the code with the lookahead feature to be just as fast. > Thus, I merged the two patches. (Also did testing for worstcase [1]) > > I do wonder if the lookahead have any real benefit. In micro > benchmarking it might be "just-as-fast", but I do suspect (just the code > size increase) it can affect real use-cases... Should we remove it? > > [1] https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/mm/slab_bulk_test03.c If it's not implemented yet, I would say that starting with simple one first. But, now, we already have well implemented one so we don't need to remove it. :) Thanks. -- 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>