Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

>> :t-0000128               28739     128     1.3G  20984/20984/8  512 0  99   0 *
>
> Argh. Most slabs contain a single object. Probably due to the conflict resolution.

agreed with the issue exist in lock contention code.


> The obvious fix is to avoid allocating another slab on conflict but how will
> this impact performance?
>
>
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c    2008-08-13 08:06:00.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c 2008-08-13 08:07:59.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1253,13 +1253,11 @@
>  static inline int lock_and_freeze_slab(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
>                                                        struct page *page)
>  {
> -       if (slab_trylock(page)) {
> -               list_del(&page->lru);
> -               n->nr_partial--;
> -               __SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> -               return 1;
> -       }
> -       return 0;
> +       slab_lock(page);
> +       list_del(&page->lru);
> +       n->nr_partial--;
> +       __SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> +       return 1;
>  }

I don't mesure it yet. I don't like this patch.
maybe, it decrease other typical benchmark.

So, I think better way is

1. slab_trylock(), if success goto 10.
2. check fragmentation ratio, if low goto 10
3. slab_lock()
10. return func

I think this way doesn't cause performance regression.
because high fragmentation cause defrag and compaction lately.
So, prevent fragmentation often increase performance.

Thought?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/