Boot failure on emev2/kzm9d (was: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache)
From: geert@linux-m68k.org (Geert Uytterhoeven)
Date: 2016-06-14 07:31:27
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-14 · Re: Boot failure on emev2/kzm9d (was: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache) · Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Hi Joonsoo, On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Joonsoo Kim [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:quoted
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:51 AM, [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Joonsoo Kim <redacted> To check whther free objects exist or not precisely, we need to grab a lock. But, accuracy isn't that important because race window would be even small and if there is too much free object, cache reaper would reap it. So, this patch makes the check for free object exisistence not to hold a lock. This will reduce lock contention in heavily allocation case. Note that until now, n->shared can be freed during the processing by writing slabinfo, but, with some trick in this patch, we can access it freely within interrupt disabled period. 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=248/966 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(64): Average=261/949 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(128): Average=314/1016 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(256): Average=741/1061 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(512): Average=1246/1152 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(1024): Average=2437/1259 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(2048): Average=4980/1800 Kmalloc N*alloc N*free(4096): Average=9000/2078 * 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 allocation performance decreases for the object size up to 128 and it may be due to extra checks in cache_alloc_refill(). But, with considering improvement of free performance, net result looks the same. Result for other size class looks very promising, roughly, 50% performance improvement. v2: replace kick_all_cpus_sync() with synchronize_sched(). Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <redacted>I've bisected a boot failure (no output at all) in v4.7-rc2 on emev2/kzm9d (Renesas dual Cortex A9) to this patch, which is upstream commit 801faf0db8947e01877920e848a4d338dd7a99e7. I've attached my .config. I don't know if it also happens with shmobile_defconfig, as something went wrong with my remote access to the board, preventing further testing. I also couldn't verify if the issue persists in v4.7-rc3.
In the mean time, I've verified it also happens with shmobile_defconfig.
quoted
Do you have a clue?I don't have yet. Could you help me to narrow down the problem? Following diff is half-revert change to check that synchronize_sched() has no problem.
Thanks! Unfortunately the half revert is not sufficient. The full revert is.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
----->8-----diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c index 763096a..257a0eb 100644 --- a/mm/slab.c +++ b/mm/slab.c@@ -3016,9 +3016,6 @@ static void *cache_alloc_refill(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags) n = get_node(cachep, node); BUG_ON(ac->avail > 0 || !n); - shared = READ_ONCE(n->shared); - if (!n->free_objects && (!shared || !shared->avail)) - goto direct_grow; spin_lock(&n->list_lock); shared = READ_ONCE(n->shared);@@ -3047,7 +3044,6 @@ alloc_done: spin_unlock(&n->list_lock); fixup_objfreelist_debug(cachep, &list); -direct_grow: if (unlikely(!ac->avail)) { /* Check if we can use obj in pfmemalloc slab */ if (sk_memalloc_socks()) {
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds