Hi Nick,
Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > adding some non-power-of-two kmalloc caches might help with internal
> > fragmentation.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> That too, although of course it will work against the external
> fragmentation problem. This is more of an O(n) problem and may not
> be responsible for as much waste as the first issue on small memory
> machines (I haven't done detailed profiling so I don't know).
I would have thought so too, but my crude hack to approximate internal
fragmentation says otherwise. On the same Debian on UML virtual machine I
see up to 190 KB of wasted space due to internal fragmentation (average
allocation size being considerably smaller than object size for cache)
with the biggest offender being kmalloc-512.
But, what we really need is some real workloads on small machines using
something resembling my scripts to figure out the memory profile for SLUB.
Pekka
#!/bin/bash
total_wasted=0
for i in $(find /sys/slab -type d -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 | sort)
do
slabs=$(cat $i/slabs)
objs_per_slab=$(cat $i/objs_per_slab)
let "max_objs=$objs_per_slab*$slabs"
object_size=$(cat $i/object_size)
average_alloc_size=$(cat $i/average_alloc_size)
if [ "0" -ne "$average_alloc_size" ]; then
let "wasted=($object_size-$average_alloc_size)*max_objs"
echo "$i: object_size=$object_size,
average_alloc_size=$average_alloc_size, $wasted bytes wasted"
let "total_wasted=$total_wasted+$wasted"
fi
done
echo "Total internal fragmentation: $total_wasted bytes"
---
include/linux/slub_def.h | 1 +
mm/slub.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: 2.6/include/linux/slub_def.h
===================================================================
--- 2.6.orig/include/linux/slub_def.h 2007-07-09 16:09:24.000000000 +0300
+++ 2.6/include/linux/slub_def.h 2007-07-09 16:18:42.000000000 +0300
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ struct kmem_cache {
int objsize; /* The size of an object without meta data */
int offset; /* Free pointer offset. */
int order;
+ int average_alloc_size;
/*
* Avoid an extra cache line for UP, SMP and for the node local to
Index: 2.6/mm/slub.c
===================================================================
--- 2.6.orig/mm/slub.c 2007-07-09 16:09:24.000000000 +0300
+++ 2.6/mm/slub.c 2007-07-09 16:35:53.000000000 +0300
@@ -2238,12 +2238,22 @@ BUG_ON(index < 0);
return &kmalloc_caches[index];
}
+static void update_avg(struct kmem_cache *s, size_t size)
+{
+ if (s->average_alloc_size)
+ s->average_alloc_size = (s->average_alloc_size + size) / 2;
+ else
+ s->average_alloc_size = size;
+}
+
void *__kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
{
struct kmem_cache *s = get_slab(size, flags);
- if (s)
+ if (s) {
+ update_avg(s, size);
return slab_alloc(s, flags, -1, __builtin_return_address(0));
+ }
return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kmalloc);
@@ -2253,8 +2263,11 @@ void *__kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t
{
struct kmem_cache *s = get_slab(size, flags);
- if (s)
+ if (s) {
+ update_avg(s, size);
return slab_alloc(s, flags, node, __builtin_return_address(0));
+ }
+
return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kmalloc_node);
@@ -2677,6 +2690,8 @@ void *__kmalloc_track_caller(size_t size
if (!s)
return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
+ update_avg(s, size);
+
return slab_alloc(s, gfpflags, -1, caller);
}
@@ -2688,6 +2703,8 @@ void *__kmalloc_node_track_caller(size_t
if (!s)
return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
+ update_avg(s, size);
+
return slab_alloc(s, gfpflags, node, caller);
}
@@ -3268,6 +3285,12 @@ static ssize_t objects_show(struct kmem_
}
SLAB_ATTR_RO(objects);
+static ssize_t average_alloc_size_show(struct kmem_cache *s, char *buf)
+{
+ return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", s->average_alloc_size);
+}
+SLAB_ATTR_RO(average_alloc_size);
+
static ssize_t sanity_checks_show(struct kmem_cache *s, char *buf)
{
return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", !!(s->flags & SLAB_DEBUG_FREE));
@@ -3466,6 +3489,7 @@ static struct attribute * slab_attrs[] =
&order_attr.attr,
&objects_attr.attr,
&slabs_attr.attr,
+ &average_alloc_size_attr.attr,
&partial_attr.attr,
&cpu_slabs_attr.attr,
&ctor_attr.attr,
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
