In current implementation, after unfreezing, we doesn't touch oldpage,
so it remain 'NOT NULL'. When we call this_cpu_cmpxchg()
with this old oldpage, this_cpu_cmpxchg() is mostly be failed.
We can change value of oldpage to NULL after unfreezing,
because unfreeze_partial() ensure that all the cpu partial slabs is removed
from cpu partial list. In this time, we could expect that
this_cpu_cmpxchg is mostly succeed.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
---
Hello, Pekka.
These two patches get "Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>",
but, I don't hear any answer from U.
Could you review these, please?
Thanks!
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index e517d43..ca778e5 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1952,6 +1952,7 @@ int put_cpu_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, int drain)
local_irq_save(flags);
unfreeze_partials(s);
local_irq_restore(flags);
+ oldpage = NULL;
pobjects = 0;
pages = 0;
stat(s, CPU_PARTIAL_DRAIN);
--
1.7.9.5
When we try to free object, there is some of case that we need
to take a node lock. This is the necessary step for preventing a race.
After taking a lock, then we try to cmpxchg_double_slab().
But, there is a possible scenario that cmpxchg_double_slab() is failed
with taking a lock. Following example explains it.
CPU A CPU B
need lock
... need lock
... lock!!
lock..but spin free success
spin... unlock
lock!!
free fail
In this case, retry with taking a lock is occured in CPU A.
I think that in this case for CPU A,
"release a lock first, and re-take a lock if necessary" is preferable way.
There are two reasons for this.
First, this makes __slab_free()'s logic somehow simple.
With this patch, 'was_frozen = 1' is "always" handled without taking a lock.
So we can remove one code path.
Second, it may reduce lock contention.
When we do retrying, status of slab is already changed,
so we don't need a lock anymore in almost every case.
"release a lock first, and re-take a lock if necessary" policy is
helpful to this.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index ca778e5..efce427 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -2421,7 +2421,6 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
void *prior;
void **object = (void *)x;
int was_frozen;
- int inuse;
struct page new;
unsigned long counters;
struct kmem_cache_node *n = NULL;
@@ -2433,13 +2432,17 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
return;
do {
+ if (unlikely(n)) {
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
+ n = NULL;
+ }
prior = page->freelist;
counters = page->counters;
set_freepointer(s, object, prior);
new.counters = counters;
was_frozen = new.frozen;
new.inuse--;
- if ((!new.inuse || !prior) && !was_frozen && !n) {
+ if ((!new.inuse || !prior) && !was_frozen) {
if (!kmem_cache_debug(s) && !prior)
@@ -2464,7 +2467,6 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
}
}
- inuse = new.inuse;
} while (!cmpxchg_double_slab(s, page,
prior, counters,
@@ -2490,25 +2492,17 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
return;
}
+ if (unlikely(!new.inuse && n->nr_partial > s->min_partial))
+ goto slab_empty;
+
/*
- * was_frozen may have been set after we acquired the list_lock in
- * an earlier loop. So we need to check it here again.
+ * Objects left in the slab. If it was not on the partial list before
+ * then add it.
*/
- if (was_frozen)
- stat(s, FREE_FROZEN);
- else {
- if (unlikely(!inuse && n->nr_partial > s->min_partial))
- goto slab_empty;
-
- /*
- * Objects left in the slab. If it was not on the partial list before
- * then add it.
- */
- if (unlikely(!prior)) {
- remove_full(s, page);
- add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL);
- stat(s, FREE_ADD_PARTIAL);
- }
+ if (kmem_cache_debug(s) && unlikely(!prior)) {
+ remove_full(s, page);
+ add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL);
+ stat(s, FREE_ADD_PARTIAL);
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
return;
--
1.7.9.5
2012/8/16 Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]>:
> When we try to free object, there is some of case that we need
> to take a node lock. This is the necessary step for preventing a race.
> After taking a lock, then we try to cmpxchg_double_slab().
> But, there is a possible scenario that cmpxchg_double_slab() is failed
> with taking a lock. Following example explains it.
>
> CPU A CPU B
> need lock
> ... need lock
> ... lock!!
> lock..but spin free success
> spin... unlock
> lock!!
> free fail
>
> In this case, retry with taking a lock is occured in CPU A.
> I think that in this case for CPU A,
> "release a lock first, and re-take a lock if necessary" is preferable way.
>
> There are two reasons for this.
>
> First, this makes __slab_free()'s logic somehow simple.
> With this patch, 'was_frozen = 1' is "always" handled without taking a lock.
> So we can remove one code path.
>
> Second, it may reduce lock contention.
> When we do retrying, status of slab is already changed,
> so we don't need a lock anymore in almost every case.
> "release a lock first, and re-take a lock if necessary" policy is
> helpful to this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index ca778e5..efce427 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -2421,7 +2421,6 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
> void *prior;
> void **object = (void *)x;
> int was_frozen;
> - int inuse;
> struct page new;
> unsigned long counters;
> struct kmem_cache_node *n = NULL;
> @@ -2433,13 +2432,17 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
> return;
>
> do {
> + if (unlikely(n)) {
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> + n = NULL;
> + }
> prior = page->freelist;
> counters = page->counters;
> set_freepointer(s, object, prior);
> new.counters = counters;
> was_frozen = new.frozen;
> new.inuse--;
> - if ((!new.inuse || !prior) && !was_frozen && !n) {
> + if ((!new.inuse || !prior) && !was_frozen) {
>
> if (!kmem_cache_debug(s) && !prior)
>
> @@ -2464,7 +2467,6 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
>
> }
> }
> - inuse = new.inuse;
>
> } while (!cmpxchg_double_slab(s, page,
> prior, counters,
> @@ -2490,25 +2492,17 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
> return;
> }
>
> + if (unlikely(!new.inuse && n->nr_partial > s->min_partial))
> + goto slab_empty;
> +
> /*
> - * was_frozen may have been set after we acquired the list_lock in
> - * an earlier loop. So we need to check it here again.
> + * Objects left in the slab. If it was not on the partial list before
> + * then add it.
> */
> - if (was_frozen)
> - stat(s, FREE_FROZEN);
> - else {
> - if (unlikely(!inuse && n->nr_partial > s->min_partial))
> - goto slab_empty;
> -
> - /*
> - * Objects left in the slab. If it was not on the partial list before
> - * then add it.
> - */
> - if (unlikely(!prior)) {
> - remove_full(s, page);
> - add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL);
> - stat(s, FREE_ADD_PARTIAL);
> - }
> + if (kmem_cache_debug(s) && unlikely(!prior)) {
> + remove_full(s, page);
> + add_partial(n, page, DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL);
> + stat(s, FREE_ADD_PARTIAL);
> }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> return;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
Hello, Pekka.
Could you review this patch and comment it, please?
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> When we try to free object, there is some of case that we need
> to take a node lock. This is the necessary step for preventing a race.
> After taking a lock, then we try to cmpxchg_double_slab().
> But, there is a possible scenario that cmpxchg_double_slab() is failed
> with taking a lock. Following example explains it.
>
> CPU A CPU B
> need lock
> ... need lock
> ... lock!!
> lock..but spin free success
> spin... unlock
> lock!!
> free fail
>
> In this case, retry with taking a lock is occured in CPU A.
> I think that in this case for CPU A,
> "release a lock first, and re-take a lock if necessary" is preferable way.
>
> There are two reasons for this.
>
> First, this makes __slab_free()'s logic somehow simple.
> With this patch, 'was_frozen = 1' is "always" handled without taking a lock.
> So we can remove one code path.
>
> Second, it may reduce lock contention.
> When we do retrying, status of slab is already changed,
> so we don't need a lock anymore in almost every case.
> "release a lock first, and re-take a lock if necessary" policy is
> helpful to this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Applied, thanks!