lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/8] make slab shrink lockless
From


On 2023/2/28 03:02, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:31:51PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/2/27 03:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 22:46:47 +0800 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>>
>> Save the above script, then run test and touch commands.
>>
>> Then we can use the following perf command to view hotspots:
>>
>> perf top -U -F 999
>>
>> 1) Before applying this patchset:
>>
>> 32.31% [kernel] [k] down_read_trylock
>> 19.40% [kernel] [k] pv_native_safe_halt
>> 16.24% [kernel] [k] up_read
>> 15.70% [kernel] [k] shrink_slab
>> 4.69% [kernel] [k] _find_next_bit
>> 2.62% [kernel] [k] shrink_node
>> 1.78% [kernel] [k] shrink_lruvec
>> 0.76% [kernel] [k] do_shrink_slab
>>
>> 2) After applying this patchset:
>>
>> 27.83% [kernel] [k] _find_next_bit
>> 16.97% [kernel] [k] shrink_slab
>> 15.82% [kernel] [k] pv_native_safe_halt
>> 9.58% [kernel] [k] shrink_node
>> 8.31% [kernel] [k] shrink_lruvec
>> 5.64% [kernel] [k] do_shrink_slab
>> 3.88% [kernel] [k] mem_cgroup_iter
>
> Not opposing the intention of the patchset in any way (I actually think
> it's a good idea to make the shrinkers list lockless), but looking at
> both outputs above I think that the main problem is not the contention on
> the semaphore, but the reason of this contention.

Yes, in the above scenario, there is indeed no lock contention problem.

>
> It seems like often there is a long list of shrinkers which barely
> can reclaim any memory, but we're calling them again and again.
> In order to achieve real wins with real-life workloads, I guess
> it's what we should optimize.
>
> Thanks!

--
Thanks,
Qi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:38    [W:0.303 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site