[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] SLQB slab allocator
    On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:

    > > > The thing IMO you forget with all these doomsday scenarios about SGI's peta
    > > > scale systems is that no matter what you do, you can't avoid the fact that
    > > > computing is about locality. Even if you totally take the TLB out of the
    > > > equation, you still have the small detail of other caches. Code that jumps
    > > > all over that 1024 TB of memory with no locality is going to suck regardless
    > > > of what the kernel ever does, due to physical limitations of hardware.
    > >
    > > Typically we traverse lists of objects that are in the same slab cache.
    > Very often that is not the case. And the price you pay for that is that
    > you have to drain and switch freelists whenever you encounter an object
    > that is not on the same page.

    SLUB can directly free an object to any slab page. "Queuing" on free via
    the per cpu slab is only possible if the object came from that per cpu
    slab. This is typically only the case for objects that were recently

    There is no switching of queues because they do not exist in that form in
    SLUB. We always determine the page address and put the object into the
    freelist of that page. Also results in nice parallelism since the lock is
    not even cpu specific.

    > This gives your freelists a chaotic and unpredictable behaviour IMO in
    > a running system where pages succumb to fragmentation so your freelist
    > maximum sizes are limited. It also means you can lose track of cache
    > hot objects when you switch to different "fast" pages. I don't consider
    > this to be "queueing done right".

    Yes you can loose track of caching hot objects. That is one of the
    concerns with the SLUB approach. On the other hand: Caching architectures
    get more and more complex these days (especially in a NUMA system). The
    SLAB approach is essentially trying to guess which objects are cache hot
    and queue them. Sometimes the queueing is advantageous (may be a reason
    that SLAB is better than SLUB in some cases). In other cases SLAB keeps
    objects on queues but the object have become sale (context switch, slab
    unused for awhile). Then its no advantage anymore.

    > > If all objects are from the same page then you need not check
    > > the NUMA locality of any object on that queue.
    > In SLAB and SLQB, all objects on the freelist are on the same node. So
    > tell me how does same-page objects simplify numa handling?

    F.e. On free you need to determine the node to find the right queue in
    SLAB. SLUB does not need to do that. It simply determines the page address
    and does not care about the node when freeing the object. It is irrelevant
    on which node the object sits.

    Also on alloc: The per cpu slab can be from a foreign node. NUMA locality
    does only matter if the caller wants memory from a particular node. So
    cpus that have no local memory can still use the per cpu slabs to have
    fast allocations etc etc.

    > > > And you found you have to increase the size of your pages because you
    > > > need bigger queues. (must we argue semantics? it is a list of free
    > > > objects)
    > >
    > > Right. That may be the case and its a similar tuning to what SLAB does.
    > SLAB and SLQB doesn't need bigger pages to do that.

    But they require more metadata handling because they need to manage lists
    of order-0 pages. metadata handling is reduced by orders of magnitude in

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-23 17:29    [W:0.023 / U:19.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site