Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:40:09 +0530
From:   Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, guro@fb.com,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the
 slub page order
Message-ID: <20210203111009.GB2869122@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: bharata@linux.ibm.com
References: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2101210959060.100764@www.lameter.com>
 <d7fb9425-9a62-c7b8-604d-5828d7e6b1da@suse.cz>
 <CAKfTPtDy3Ynk2nGCTWiXjz9-4vuSHB3pGuafoTUBPFNO1ac3PA@mail.gmail.com>
 <786571e7-b9a2-4cdb-06d5-aa4a4b439b7e@suse.cz>
 <20210123051607.GC2587010@in.ibm.com>
 <CAKfTPtAjyVmS5VYvU6DBxg4-JEo5bdmWbngf-03YsY18cmWv_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <66652406-25e4-a9e7-45a1-8ad14d2e8a36@suse.cz>
 <20210126230305.GD30941@willie-the-truck>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2101270907260.673600@www.lameter.com>
 <81424d71-c479-4c4a-de14-0a9b3f636e23@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <81424d71-c479-4c4a-de14-0a9b3f636e23@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:04:01PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/27/21 10:10 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 
> >> > Hm, but booting the secondaries is just a software (kernel) action? They are
> >> > already physically there, so it seems to me as if the cpu_present_mask is not
> >> > populated correctly on arm64, and it's just a mirror of cpu_online_mask?
> >>
> >> I think the present_mask retains CPUs if they are hotplugged off, whereas
> >> the online mask does not. We can't really do any better on arm64, as there's
> >> no way of telling that a CPU is present until we've seen it.
> > 
> > The order of each page in a kmem cache --and therefore also the number
> > of objects in a slab page-- can be different because that information is
> > stored in the page struct.
> > 
> > Therefore it is possible to retune the order while the cache is in operaton.
> 
> Yes, but it's tricky to do the retuning safely, e.g. if freelist randomization
> is enabled, see [1].
> 
> But as a quick fix for the regression, the heuristic idea could work reasonably
> on all architectures?
> - if num_present_cpus() is > 1, trust that it doesn't have the issue such as
> arm64, and use it
> - otherwise use nr_cpu_ids
> 
> Long-term we can attempt to do the retuning safe, or decide that number of cpus
> shouldn't determine the order...
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/d7fb9425-9a62-c7b8-604d-5828d7e6b1da@suse.cz/

So what is preferrable here now? Above or other quick fix or reverting
the original commit?

Regards,
Bharata.