Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:03:15AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 01:22:41PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > kfree_rcu() logic can be improved further by using kfree_bulk()
> > interface along with "basic batching support" introduced earlier.
> >
> > The are at least two advantages of using "bulk" interface:
> > - in case of large number of kfree_rcu() requests kfree_bulk()
> > reduces the per-object overhead caused by calling kfree()
> > per-object.
> >
> > - reduces the number of cache-misses due to "pointer chasing"
> > between objects which can be far spread between each other.
> >
> > This approach defines a new kfree_rcu_bulk_data structure that
> > stores pointers in an array with a specific size. Number of entries
> > in that array depends on PAGE_SIZE making kfree_rcu_bulk_data
> > structure to be exactly one page.
> >
> > Since it deals with "block-chain" technique there is an extra
> > need in dynamic allocation when a new block is required. Memory
> > is allocated with GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN flags, i.e. that
> > allows to skip direct reclaim under low memory condition to
> > prevent stalling and fails silently under high memory pressure.
> >
> > The "emergency path" gets maintained when a system is run out
> > of memory. In that case objects are linked into regular list
> > and that is it.
> >
> > In order to evaluate it, the "rcuperf" was run to analyze how
> > much memory is consumed and what is kfree_bulk() throughput.
> >
> > Testing on the HiKey-960, arm64, 8xCPUs with below parameters:
> >
> > CONFIG_SLAB=y
> > kfree_loops=200000 kfree_alloc_num=1000 kfree_rcu_test=1
> >
> > 102898760401 ns, loops: 200000, batches: 5822, memory footprint: 158MB
> > 89947009882 ns, loops: 200000, batches: 6715, memory footprint: 115MB
> >
> > rcuperf shows approximately ~12% better throughput(Total time)
> > in case of using "bulk" interface. The "drain logic" or its RCU
> > callback does the work faster that leads to better throughput.
>
> Nice improvement!
>
> But rcuperf uses a single block size, which turns into kfree_bulk() using
> a single slab, which results in good locality of reference. So I have to
You meant a "single cache" category when you say "single slab"? Just to
mention, the number of slabs (in a single cache) when a large number of
objects are allocated is more than 1 (not single). With current rcuperf, I
see 100s of slabs (each slab being one page) in the kmalloc-32 cache. Each
slab contains around 128 objects of type kfree_rcu (24 byte object aligned to
32-byte slab object).
> ask... Is this performance result representative of production workloads?
I added more variation to allocation sizes to rcuperf (patch below) to distribute
allocations across 4 kmalloc slabs (32,64,96 and 128) and I see a signficant
improvement with Ulad's patch in SLAB in terms of completion time of the
test. Below are the results. With SLUB I see slightly higher memory
footprint, I have never used SLUB and not sure who is using it so I am not
too concerned since the degradation in memory footprint is only slight with
SLAB having the signifcant improvement.
with SLAB:
with Ulad's patch:
[ 19.096052] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 17519684419 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 3378, memory footprint: 319MB
[ 18.980837] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 17460918969 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 3399, memory footprint: 312MB
[ 18.671535] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 17116640301 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 3331, memory footprint: 268MB
[ 18.737601] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 17227635828 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 3311, memory footprint: 329MB
without Ulad's patch:
[ 22.679112] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 21174999896 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 2722, memory footprint: 314MB
[ 22.099168] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 20528110989 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 2611, memory footprint: 240MB
[ 22.477571] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 20975674614 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 2763, memory footprint: 341MB
[ 22.772915] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 21207270347 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 2765, memory footprint: 329MB
with SLUB:
without Ulad's patch:
[ 10.714471] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 9216968353 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 1099, memory footprint: 393MB
[ 11.188174] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 9613032449 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 1147, memory footprint: 387MB
[ 11.077431] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 9547675890 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 1292, memory footprint: 296MB
[ 11.212767] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 9712869591 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 1155, memory footprint: 387MB
with Ulad's patch
[ 11.241949] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 9681912225 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 1087, memory footprint: 417MB
[ 11.651831] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 10154268745 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 1184, memory footprint: 416MB
[ 11.342659] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 9844937317 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 1137, memory footprint: 477MB
[ 11.718769] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 10138649532 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 1159, memory footprint: 395MB
Test patch for rcuperf is below. The memory footprint measurement for rcuperf
is still under discussion in another thread, but I tested based on that anyway:
---8<-----------------------
>From d44e4c6112c388d39f7c2241e061dd77cca28d9e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:59:23 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] rcuperf: Add support to vary the slab object sizes
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
index a4a8d097d84d..216d7c072ca2 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
@@ -600,17 +600,29 @@ static int kfree_nrealthreads;
static atomic_t n_kfree_perf_thread_started;
static atomic_t n_kfree_perf_thread_ended;
-struct kfree_obj {
- char kfree_obj[8];
- struct rcu_head rh;
-};
+/*
+ * Define a kfree_obj with size as the @size parameter + the size of rcu_head
+ * (rcu_head is 16 bytes on 64-bit arch).
+ */
+#define DEFINE_KFREE_OBJ(size) \
+struct kfree_obj_ ## size { \
+ char kfree_obj[size]; \
+ struct rcu_head rh; \
+}
+
+/* This should goto the right sized slabs on both 32-bit and 64-bit arch */
+DEFINE_KFREE_OBJ(16); // goes on kmalloc-32 slab
+DEFINE_KFREE_OBJ(32); // goes on kmalloc-64 slab
+DEFINE_KFREE_OBJ(64); // goes on kmalloc-96 slab
+DEFINE_KFREE_OBJ(96); // goes on kmalloc-128 slab
static int
kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
{
int i, loop = 0;
long me = (long)arg;
- struct kfree_obj *alloc_ptr;
+ void *alloc_ptr;
+
u64 start_time, end_time;
long long mem_begin, mem_during = 0;
@@ -635,11 +647,28 @@ kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
}
for (i = 0; i < kfree_alloc_num; i++) {
- alloc_ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kfree_obj), GFP_KERNEL);
+ int kfree_type = i % 4;
+
+ if (kfree_type == 0)
+ alloc_ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kfree_obj_16), GFP_KERNEL);
+ else if (kfree_type == 1)
+ alloc_ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kfree_obj_32), GFP_KERNEL);
+ else if (kfree_type == 2)
+ alloc_ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kfree_obj_64), GFP_KERNEL);
+ else
+ alloc_ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kfree_obj_96), GFP_KERNEL);
+
if (!alloc_ptr)
return -ENOMEM;
- kfree_rcu(alloc_ptr, rh);
+ if (kfree_type == 0)
+ kfree_rcu((struct kfree_obj_16 *)alloc_ptr, rh);
+ else if (kfree_type == 1)
+ kfree_rcu((struct kfree_obj_32 *)alloc_ptr, rh);
+ else if (kfree_type == 2)
+ kfree_rcu((struct kfree_obj_64 *)alloc_ptr, rh);
+ else
+ kfree_rcu((struct kfree_obj_96 *)alloc_ptr, rh);
}
cond_resched();
--
2.25.0.rc1.283.g88dfdc4193-goog
