Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:09:42 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
CC:     David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        Jay Patel <jaypatel@linux.ibm.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "patches@lists.linux.dev" <patches@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/slub: simplify the last resort slab order
 calculation
Message-ID: <ZQqatka0zPkk0B44@feng-clx>
References: <20230908145302.30320-6-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20230908145302.30320-7-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <ZQlUKJXKYYY5fxL4@feng-clx>
 <9f0ac6a5-7b13-7ce0-ead3-03746a31040e@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9f0ac6a5-7b13-7ce0-ead3-03746a31040e@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?JzTnE4MihuJurS/uGcL7e4VFWfZiyifZpbemqIyvJr38wW9j5+WzqVr999tC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?j2YJKxwflLwQQ3JqCTqxNqGaNhjwbNb03wBw9/0piuiKo85k1NesMH+INrET?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?SZMJevAv8YZ1pVhtQDwUVQsdMP/f1UKteja3jLHkGPmuViVw9+ElDDuREKPO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?/jRA/bNLYjJBOY5p3YL+l6ZVGSJRZPjWocsJBNkLpqohaYuaT977xVRHrtvs?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ATD6jWN33yJgGJF4eS+m1Ztbw9nbd2czkBdjGExh3+KQLYsf1hUYfCL+Ff8z?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?BWa4zn/0Q5/AVYpNBFMa/WknUgULIwZdsUpQQ5sjZo6ypaRG1FRBCHvojvH9?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?q+vrgu8fScysHyAgB2I4wxQ/6jl+9A0pbx4CMkVJRfQM4+QdjSuyjYagZwjH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?tsV89rzmnyg0eFuDW+l0ekCXOI1ZHFr8QtYI4WdJY443U4PPDdhrPfpmsF2l?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?X3hHPWVLwj/hDoDNaO6dTX4CXYuayBfLLGdKQPrlubc3LTCUMq+nDzmcZbu+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Rf3V74G/DCBCna+HN7HgO9i4V2yAFsZdiFKmELcJnRaLDFP4OAY0Ws1QpivO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?63ac74pxA6LPPn/FjvqOQ5lGa7Bczxg3Cob+ZTD0cNOlNkhnlyKd0UQE1i8j?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?TEhgrHTusDHDmHhxGVV6g6Csi5Mez/oVUcoc6XzCzFUUHxT0mTMQkHfJDWCH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?1QnKv86NtDcnZZLuQLiwnOc8Pmzp24yj+L+/sKe75pBgcPbzrZc6A+yjbWno?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?FwdCne7wbCakBZU7hY3Bf3iG0XdOg1Kf7DSeZwEdZwlRM69PQGqJ+eaQa7xe?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Drz23b+OKiQTTr5RYcIecWjD8llILp31iR96JLCnt3O9z/s8fS3O/VQ/F5a5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?m9VlnAJa9zm1bjHOFjC+VqPxIVJZY+eyLx6bfFcKTz3qLAxxQosXHF495rJE?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?otIz/6na3p1EEmiNsEc/vxjJxSWawG0S21HapVowKrNzqeL+Wh1CrQJVKasZ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?zal5SW+RNiDScKM1xFfzxvabHlbUEBKy8o22sPIDkGrUGaI6KSLFFv9frXC2?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?1Nd9VJPwV9XF3Ju+ADV5fjeLLHIciAB1VWWDwmSCsoFaEnUs6zAiCo1xrg/J?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?dCZkIiQVtxUzgRyjPV5sTEXbPUNyPEAOywcT40U8mnNioqL1VeTxFIJfLshq?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?biAzXbv4Py31i50vvrpFlPM1H9fnYamD6rnzQlr6Xa6/mfoRpr40mPa+3x5+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Rac0tfwVtdDLdH7Pd17GJbEiX1FnNuWUDNc3TL28ODs72uqRIECN82i+kTvm?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?JjsFEwOpehCHfUhd3XwF+ZLlI1xBtkSNhCBjORi8AM9G+t9BJ9HTNHpwRYTI?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?7z+Wi/+/HfOd1fRi6yn12yp18zp/1PPNOqZhW/KvoWN6FkXvIu4M8MRjq+XM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?teOTaMZUsuK4Zphc3A/hMStA+uWfclK+fMcDv+sY1fJDz5UbLDYNAY3XIzFo?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?sMXEAlc/DLQ7KzLQJtY/XJdJzyR/NbkoSYuNnqgnBLfxsq5hXN+CSMtlS2HM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?dt7yKu0CwWaxP7dm3zf7RjdDa98ALf/cPjV1VCUW?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1ca76432-84f6-4245-7594-08dbb9a9e39d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN0PR11MB6304.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2023 07:19:12.3988
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: 74liiNp2p7AokmSiDB8ifYwkQ4MEpDfgpMNahexcroS70Km72Is/rDBp2+2RUaAFZ+GCcA5eE257NOFz0rR1/w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH0PR11MB5377
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on agentk.vger.email
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (agentk.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Wed, 20 Sep 2023 00:19:27 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 08:38:05AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/19/23 09:56, Feng Tang wrote:
> > Hi Vlastimil,
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 10:53:04PM +0800, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> If calculate_order() can't fit even a single large object within
> >> slub_max_order, it will try using the smallest necessary order that may
> >> exceed slub_max_order but not MAX_ORDER.
> >> 
> >> Currently this is done with a call to calc_slab_order() which is
> >> unecessary. We can simply use get_order(size). No functional change.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> >> ---
> >>  mm/slub.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >> index f7940048138c..c6e694cb17b9 100644
> >> --- a/mm/slub.c
> >> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> >> @@ -4193,7 +4193,7 @@ static inline int calculate_order(unsigned int size)
> >>  	/*
> >>  	 * Doh this slab cannot be placed using slub_max_order.
> >>  	 */
> >> -	order = calc_slab_order(size, 1, MAX_ORDER, 1);
> >> +	order = get_order(size);
> > 
> > 
> > This patchset is a nice cleanup, and my previous test all looked fine. 
> > And one 'slub_min_order' setup reminded by Christopher [1] doesn't
> > work as not taking affect with this 1/4 patch.
> 
> Hmm I see. Well the trick should keep working if you pass both
> slab_min_order=9 slab_max_order=9 ? Maybe Christopher actually does that,
> but didn't type it fully in the mail.

Yes, that's possible. And "slub_min_order=9" alone also works to make
all slab's order be 9, as current code's final fallback will try
MAX_ORDER inside caculate_order():

	order = calc_slab_order(size, 1, MAX_ORDER, 1);

though the dmesg looks strange:

  SLUB: HWalign=64, Order=9-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=16, Nodes=1

> 
> > The root cause seems to be, in current kernel, the 'slub_max_order'
> > is not ajusted  accordingly with 'slub_min_order', so there is case
> > that 'slub_min_order' is bigger than the default 'slub_max_order' (3).
> > 
> > And it could be fixed by the below patch 
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 1c91f72c7239..dbe950783105 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -4702,6 +4702,9 @@ static int __init setup_slub_min_order(char *str)
> >  {
> >  	get_option(&str, (int *)&slub_min_order);
> >  
> > +	if (slub_min_order > slub_max_order)
> > +		slub_max_order = slub_min_order;
> > +
> >  	return 1;
> >  }
> 
> Sounds like a good idea. Would also do analogous thing in setup_slub_max_order.

Yes.

> > Though the formal fix may also need to cover case like this kind of
> > crazy setting "slub_min_order=6 slub_max_order=5" 
> 
> Doing both should cover even this, and AFAICS how param processing works the
> last one passed would "win" so it would set min=max=5 in that case. That's
> probably the most sane way we can handle such scenarios.

Agree. The latter setting should take privilage. My test code also
does this way.

> Want to set a full patch or should I finalize it? I would put it as a new
> 1/5 before the rest. Thanks!

I can try to make a patch with more detail in commit log, and resend. Thanks
for the review!

Thanks,
Feng

> 
> > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/21a0ba8b-bf05-0799-7c78-2a35f8c8d52a@os.amperecomputing.com/
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Feng
> > 
> >>  	if (order <= MAX_ORDER)
> >>  		return order;
> >>  	return -ENOSYS;
> >> -- 
> >> 2.42.0
> >> 
> >> 
>