LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH] alloc_percpu() fails to allocate percpu data
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:00:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47BDBC23.10605@cosmosbay.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

Some oprofile results obtained while using tbench on a 2x2 cpu machine 
were very surprising.

For example, loopback_xmit() function was using high number of cpu 
cycles to perform
the statistic updates, supposed to be real cheap since they use percpu data

        pcpu_lstats = netdev_priv(dev);
        lb_stats = per_cpu_ptr(pcpu_lstats, smp_processor_id());
        lb_stats->packets++;  /* HERE : serious contention */
        lb_stats->bytes += skb->len;


struct pcpu_lstats is a small structure containing two longs. It appears 
that on my 32bits platform,
alloc_percpu(8) allocates a single cache line,  instead of giving to 
each cpu a separate
cache line.

Using the following patch gave me impressive boost in various benchmarks 
( 6 % in tbench)
(all percpu_counters hit this bug too)

Long term fix (ie >= 2.6.26) would be to let each CPU allocate their own 
block of memory, so that we
dont need to roudup sizes to L1_CACHE_BYTES, or merging the SGI stuff of 
course...

Note : SLUB vs SLAB is important here to *show* the improvement, since 
they dont have the same minimum
allocation sizes (8 bytes vs 32 bytes).
This could very well explain regressions some guys reported when they 
switched to SLUB.

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>

 mm/allocpercpu.c |   15 ++++++++++++++-
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)



[-- Attachment #2: percpu_populate.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]

diff --git a/mm/allocpercpu.c b/mm/allocpercpu.c
index 7e58322..b0012e2 100644
--- a/mm/allocpercpu.c
+++ b/mm/allocpercpu.c
@@ -6,6 +6,10 @@
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 
+#ifndef cache_line_size
+#define cache_line_size()	L1_CACHE_BYTES
+#endif
+
 /**
  * percpu_depopulate - depopulate per-cpu data for given cpu
  * @__pdata: per-cpu data to depopulate
@@ -52,6 +56,11 @@ void *percpu_populate(void *__pdata, size_t size, gfp_t gfp, int cpu)
 	struct percpu_data *pdata = __percpu_disguise(__pdata);
 	int node = cpu_to_node(cpu);
 
+	/*
+	 * We should make sure each CPU gets private memory.
+	 */
+	size = roundup(size, cache_line_size());
+
 	BUG_ON(pdata->ptrs[cpu]);
 	if (node_online(node))
 		pdata->ptrs[cpu] = kmalloc_node(size, gfp|__GFP_ZERO, node);
@@ -98,7 +107,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_populate_mask);
  */
 void *__percpu_alloc_mask(size_t size, gfp_t gfp, cpumask_t *mask)
 {
-	void *pdata = kzalloc(nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(void *), gfp);
+	/*
+	 * We allocate whole cache lines to avoid false sharing
+	 */
+	size_t sz = roundup(nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(void *), cache_line_size());
+	void *pdata = kzalloc(sz, gfp);
 	void *__pdata = __percpu_disguise(pdata);
 
 	if (unlikely(!pdata))

             reply	other threads:[~2008-02-21 18:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-21 18:00 Eric Dumazet [this message]
2008-02-21 22:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-23  9:23   ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-27 19:44     ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-03  3:14       ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-03  7:48         ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-03  9:41           ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-03 19:30         ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-23  8:04 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-27 19:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-27 20:24   ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-27 21:56     ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-01 13:53     ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-11 18:15 ` Mike Snitzer
2008-03-11 18:41   ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-11 19:39     ` Mike Snitzer
2008-03-12  0:18       ` [stable] " Chris Wright

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=47BDBC23.10605@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=clameter@sgi.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] alloc_percpu() fails to allocate percpu data' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).