slub: refactoring unfreeze_partials()
commit 43d77867 upstream. Current implementation of unfreeze_partials() is so complicated, but benefit from it is insignificant. In addition many code in do {} while loop have a bad influence to a fail rate of cmpxchg_double_slab. Under current implementation which test status of cpu partial slab and acquire list_lock in do {} while loop, we don't need to acquire a list_lock and gain a little benefit when front of the cpu partial slab is to be discarded, but this is a rare case. In case that add_partial is performed and cmpxchg_double_slab is failed, remove_partial should be called case by case. I think that these are disadvantages of current implementation, so I do refactoring unfreeze_partials(). Minimizing code in do {} while loop introduce a reduced fail rate of cmpxchg_double_slab. Below is output of 'slabinfo -r kmalloc-256' when './perf stat -r 33 hackbench 50 process 4000 > /dev/null' is done. ** before ** Cmpxchg_double Looping ------------------------ Locked Cmpxchg Double redos 182685 Unlocked Cmpxchg Double redos 0 ** after ** Cmpxchg_double Looping ------------------------ Locked Cmpxchg Double redos 177995 Unlocked Cmpxchg Double redos 1 We can see cmpxchg_double_slab fail rate is improved slightly. Bolow is output of './perf stat -r 30 hackbench 50 process 4000 > /dev/null'. ** before ** Performance counter stats for './hackbench 50 process 4000' (30 runs): 108517.190463 task-clock # 7.926 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.24% ) 2,919,550 context-switches # 0.027 M/sec ( +- 3.07% ) 100,774 CPU-migrations # 0.929 K/sec ( +- 4.72% ) 124,201 page-faults # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 0.15% ) 401,500,234,387 cycles # 3.700 GHz ( +- 0.24% ) <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend 250,576,913,354 instructions # 0.62 insns per cycle ( +- 0.13% ) 45,934,956,860 branches # 423.297 M/sec ( +- 0.14% ) 188,219,787 branch-misses # 0.41% of all branches ( +- 0.56% ) 13.691837307 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.24% ) ** after ** Performance counter stats for './hackbench 50 process 4000' (30 runs): 107784.479767 task-clock # 7.928 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.22% ) 2,834,781 context-switches # 0.026 M/sec ( +- 2.33% ) 93,083 CPU-migrations # 0.864 K/sec ( +- 3.45% ) 123,967 page-faults # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 0.15% ) 398,781,421,836 cycles # 3.700 GHz ( +- 0.22% ) <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend 250,189,160,419 instructions # 0.63 insns per cycle ( +- 0.09% ) 45,855,370,128 branches # 425.436 M/sec ( +- 0.10% ) 169,881,248 branch-misses # 0.37% of all branches ( +- 0.43% ) 13.596272341 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.22% ) No regression is found, but rather we can see slightly better result. Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org> [bwh: Backported to 3.2: adjust context] Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment