summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJoonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>2016-05-19 17:10:02 -0700
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>2016-05-19 19:12:14 -0700
commit18726ca8b34bbfb3ab5a1c0a52a5d8dd392466ed (patch)
tree90bdc46a1eda7b6b67c54bfb78ed851478aac027
parent19d795b677bda354644cfb87a196b087fdc2a965 (diff)
downloadlinux-stable-18726ca8b34bbfb3ab5a1c0a52a5d8dd392466ed.tar.gz
linux-stable-18726ca8b34bbfb3ab5a1c0a52a5d8dd392466ed.tar.bz2
linux-stable-18726ca8b34bbfb3ab5a1c0a52a5d8dd392466ed.zip
mm/slab: fix the theoretical race by holding proper lock
While processing concurrent allocation, SLAB could be contended a lot because it did a lots of work with holding a lock. This patchset try to reduce the number of critical section to reduce lock contention. Major changes are lockless decision to allocate more slab and lockless cpu cache refill from the newly allocated slab. Below is the result of concurrent allocation/free in slab allocation benchmark made by Christoph a long time ago. I make the output simpler. The number shows cycle count during alloc/free respectively so less is better. * Before Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(32): Average=365/806 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(64): Average=452/690 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(128): Average=736/886 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(256): Average=1167/985 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(512): Average=2088/1125 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(1024): Average=4115/1184 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(2048): Average=8451/1748 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(4096): Average=16024/2048 * After Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(32): Average=344/792 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(64): Average=347/882 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(128): Average=390/959 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(256): Average=393/1067 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(512): Average=683/1229 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(1024): Average=1295/1325 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(2048): Average=2513/1664 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(4096): Average=4742/2172 It shows that performance improves greatly (roughly more than 50%) for the object class whose size is more than 128 bytes. This patch (of 11): If we don't hold neither the slab_mutex nor the node lock, node's shared array cache could be freed and re-populated. If __kmem_cache_shrink() is called at the same time, it will call drain_array() with n->shared without holding node lock so problem can happen. This patch fix the situation by holding the node lock before trying to drain the shared array. In addition, add a debug check to confirm that n->shared access race doesn't exist. Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
-rw-r--r--mm/slab.c68
1 files changed, 45 insertions, 23 deletions
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index 17e2848979c5..3f1cc1ca4d88 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -2180,6 +2180,11 @@ static void check_irq_on(void)
BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
}
+static void check_mutex_acquired(void)
+{
+ BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&slab_mutex));
+}
+
static void check_spinlock_acquired(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
@@ -2199,13 +2204,27 @@ static void check_spinlock_acquired_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep, int node)
#else
#define check_irq_off() do { } while(0)
#define check_irq_on() do { } while(0)
+#define check_mutex_acquired() do { } while(0)
#define check_spinlock_acquired(x) do { } while(0)
#define check_spinlock_acquired_node(x, y) do { } while(0)
#endif
-static void drain_array(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct kmem_cache_node *n,
- struct array_cache *ac,
- int force, int node);
+static void drain_array_locked(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct array_cache *ac,
+ int node, bool free_all, struct list_head *list)
+{
+ int tofree;
+
+ if (!ac || !ac->avail)
+ return;
+
+ tofree = free_all ? ac->avail : (ac->limit + 4) / 5;
+ if (tofree > ac->avail)
+ tofree = (ac->avail + 1) / 2;
+
+ free_block(cachep, ac->entry, tofree, node, list);
+ ac->avail -= tofree;
+ memmove(ac->entry, &(ac->entry[tofree]), sizeof(void *) * ac->avail);
+}
static void do_drain(void *arg)
{
@@ -2229,6 +2248,7 @@ static void drain_cpu_caches(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
{
struct kmem_cache_node *n;
int node;
+ LIST_HEAD(list);
on_each_cpu(do_drain, cachep, 1);
check_irq_on();
@@ -2236,8 +2256,13 @@ static void drain_cpu_caches(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
if (n->alien)
drain_alien_cache(cachep, n->alien);
- for_each_kmem_cache_node(cachep, node, n)
- drain_array(cachep, n, n->shared, 1, node);
+ for_each_kmem_cache_node(cachep, node, n) {
+ spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
+ drain_array_locked(cachep, n->shared, node, true, &list);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
+
+ slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
+ }
}
/*
@@ -3869,29 +3894,26 @@ skip_setup:
* if drain_array() is used on the shared array.
*/
static void drain_array(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct kmem_cache_node *n,
- struct array_cache *ac, int force, int node)
+ struct array_cache *ac, int node)
{
LIST_HEAD(list);
- int tofree;
+
+ /* ac from n->shared can be freed if we don't hold the slab_mutex. */
+ check_mutex_acquired();
if (!ac || !ac->avail)
return;
- if (ac->touched && !force) {
+
+ if (ac->touched) {
ac->touched = 0;
- } else {
- spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
- if (ac->avail) {
- tofree = force ? ac->avail : (ac->limit + 4) / 5;
- if (tofree > ac->avail)
- tofree = (ac->avail + 1) / 2;
- free_block(cachep, ac->entry, tofree, node, &list);
- ac->avail -= tofree;
- memmove(ac->entry, &(ac->entry[tofree]),
- sizeof(void *) * ac->avail);
- }
- spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
- slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
+ return;
}
+
+ spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
+ drain_array_locked(cachep, ac, node, false, &list);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
+
+ slabs_destroy(cachep, &list);
}
/**
@@ -3929,7 +3951,7 @@ static void cache_reap(struct work_struct *w)
reap_alien(searchp, n);
- drain_array(searchp, n, cpu_cache_get(searchp), 0, node);
+ drain_array(searchp, n, cpu_cache_get(searchp), node);
/*
* These are racy checks but it does not matter
@@ -3940,7 +3962,7 @@ static void cache_reap(struct work_struct *w)
n->next_reap = jiffies + REAPTIMEOUT_NODE;
- drain_array(searchp, n, n->shared, 0, node);
+ drain_array(searchp, n, n->shared, node);
if (n->free_touched)
n->free_touched = 0;