commit 43d77867a4 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>
[lizf: Backported to 3.4: adjust context]
Signed-off-by: Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>
e0483eb80c