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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <20210203111009.GB2869122@in.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210203111009.GB2869122@in.ibm.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:32:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBLnig+M0pjoYEYtDbVLT=J5fkn9__RrsiTrUB_51XcZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the
 slub page order
To:     Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 12:10, Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

I'm fine with whatever the solution as long as we can use keep using
nr_cpu_ids when other values like num_present_cpus, don't reflect
correctly the system

Regards,
Vincent

>
> Regards,
> Bharata.