On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:27:29AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Since we don't control the NUMA locality of objects in percpu sheaves,
> allocations with node restrictions bypass them. Allocations without
> restrictions may however still expect to get local objects with high
> probability, and the introduction of sheaves can decrease it due to
> freed object from a remote node ending up in percpu sheaves.
>
> The fraction of such remote frees seems low (5% on an 8-node machine)
> but it can be expected that some cache or workload specific corner cases
> exist. We can either conclude that this is not a problem due to the low
> fraction, or we can make remote frees bypass percpu sheaves and go
> directly to their slabs. This will make the remote frees more expensive,
> but if if's only a small fraction, most frees will still benefit from
> the lower overhead of percpu sheaves.
>
> This patch thus makes remote object freeing bypass percpu sheaves,
> including bulk freeing, and kfree_rcu() via the rcu_free sheaf. However
> it's not intended to be 100% guarantee that percpu sheaves will only
> contain local objects. The refill from slabs does not provide that
> guarantee in the first place, and there might be cpu migrations
> happening when we need to unlock the local_lock. Avoiding all that could
> be possible but complicated so we can leave it for later investigation
> whether it would be worth it. It can be expected that the more selective
> freeing will itself prevent accumulation of remote objects in percpu
> sheaves so any such violations would have only short-term effects.
>
> Another possible optimization to investigate is whether it would be
> beneficial for node-restricted or strict_numa allocations to attempt to
> obtain an object from percpu sheaves if the node or mempolicy (i.e.
> MPOL_LOCAL) happens to want the local node of the allocating cpu. Right
> now such allocations bypass sheaves, but they could probably look first
> whether the first available object in percpu sheaves is local, and with
> high probability succeed - and only bypass the sheaves in cases it's
> not local.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz>
> ---
> mm/slab_common.c | 7 +++++--
> mm/slub.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index
> cc273cc45f632e16644355831132cdc391219cec..2bf83e2b85b23f4db2b311edaded4bef6b7d01de
> 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -5924,8 +5948,15 @@ void slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab
> *slab, void *object,
> if (unlikely(!slab_free_hook(s, object, slab_want_init_on_free(s),
> false)))
> return;
>
> - if (!s->cpu_sheaves || !free_to_pcs(s, object))
> - do_slab_free(s, slab, object, object, 1, addr);
> + if (s->cpu_sheaves) {
> + if (likely(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) ||
> + slab_nid(slab) == numa_node_id())) {
> + free_to_pcs(s, object);
Shouldn't it call do_slab_free() when free_to_pcs() failed?
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + do_slab_free(s, slab, object, object, 1, addr);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
>
> --
> 2.49.0
>
>
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
