mirror of
https://github.com/hardkernel/linux.git
synced 2026-06-05 10:31:46 +09:00
5ef132d564
Currently, zsmalloc has a hierarchy of locks, which includes a pool-level
migrate_lock, and a lock for each size class. We have to obtain both
locks in the hotpath in most cases anyway, except for zs_malloc. This
exception will no longer exist when we introduce a LRU into the zs_pool
for the new writeback functionality - we will need to obtain a pool-level
lock to synchronize LRU handling even in zs_malloc.
In preparation for zsmalloc writeback, consolidate these locks into a
single pool-level lock, which drastically reduces the complexity of
synchronization in zsmalloc.
We have also benchmarked the lock consolidation to see the performance
effect of this change on zram.
First, we ran a synthetic FS workload on a server machine with 36 cores
(same machine for all runs), using
fs_mark -d ../zram1mnt -s 100000 -n 2500 -t 32 -k
before and after for btrfs and ext4 on zram (FS usage is 80%).
Here is the result (unit is file/second):
With lock consolidation (btrfs):
Average: 13520.2, Median: 13531.0, Stddev: 137.5961482019028
Without lock consolidation (btrfs):
Average: 13487.2, Median: 13575.0, Stddev: 309.08283679298665
With lock consolidation (ext4):
Average: 16824.4, Median: 16839.0, Stddev: 89.97388510006668
Without lock consolidation (ext4)
Average: 16958.0, Median: 16986.0, Stddev: 194.7370021336469
As you can see, we observe a 0.3% regression for btrfs, and a 0.9%
regression for ext4. This is a small, barely measurable difference in my
opinion.
For a more realistic scenario, we also tries building the kernel on zram.
Here is the time it takes (in seconds):
With lock consolidation (btrfs):
real
Average: 319.6, Median: 320.0, Stddev: 0.8944271909999159
user
Average: 6894.2, Median: 6895.0, Stddev: 25.528415540334656
sys
Average: 521.4, Median: 522.0, Stddev: 1.51657508881031
Without lock consolidation (btrfs):
real
Average: 319.8, Median: 320.0, Stddev: 0.8366600265340756
user
Average: 6896.6, Median: 6899.0, Stddev: 16.04057355583023
sys
Average: 520.6, Median: 521.0, Stddev: 1.140175425099138
With lock consolidation (ext4):
real
Average: 320.0, Median: 319.0, Stddev: 1.4142135623730951
user
Average: 6896.8, Median: 6878.0, Stddev: 28.621670111997307
sys
Average: 521.2, Median: 521.0, Stddev: 1.7888543819998317
Without lock consolidation (ext4)
real
Average: 319.6, Median: 319.0, Stddev: 0.8944271909999159
user
Average: 6886.2, Median: 6887.0, Stddev: 16.93221781102523
sys
Average: 520.4, Median: 520.0, Stddev: 1.140175425099138
The difference is entirely within the noise of a typical run on zram.
This hardly justifies the complexity of maintaining both the pool lock and
the class lock. In fact, for writeback, we would need to introduce yet
another lock to prevent data races on the pool's LRU, further complicating
the lock handling logic. IMHO, it is just better to collapse all of these
into a single pool-level lock.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221128191616.1261026-4-nphamcs@gmail.com
Change-Id: Ib0eb09d7a69190fc4ffea8f819423c7f66d83379
Signed-off-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>
Cc: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
Cc: Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit c0547d0b6a)
Bug: 297093100
Signed-off-by: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
How do I submit patches to Android Common Kernels
-
BEST: Make all of your changes to upstream Linux. If appropriate, backport to the stable releases. These patches will be merged automatically in the corresponding common kernels. If the patch is already in upstream Linux, post a backport of the patch that conforms to the patch requirements below.
- Do not send patches upstream that contain only symbol exports. To be considered for upstream Linux,
additions of
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()require an in-tree modular driver that uses the symbol -- so include the new driver or changes to an existing driver in the same patchset as the export. - When sending patches upstream, the commit message must contain a clear case for why the patch is needed and beneficial to the community. Enabling out-of-tree drivers or functionality is not not a persuasive case.
- Do not send patches upstream that contain only symbol exports. To be considered for upstream Linux,
additions of
-
LESS GOOD: Develop your patches out-of-tree (from an upstream Linux point-of-view). Unless these are fixing an Android-specific bug, these are very unlikely to be accepted unless they have been coordinated with kernel-team@android.com. If you want to proceed, post a patch that conforms to the patch requirements below.
Common Kernel patch requirements
- All patches must conform to the Linux kernel coding standards and pass
scripts/checkpatch.pl - Patches shall not break gki_defconfig or allmodconfig builds for arm, arm64, x86, x86_64 architectures (see https://source.android.com/setup/build/building-kernels)
- If the patch is not merged from an upstream branch, the subject must be tagged with the type of patch:
UPSTREAM:,BACKPORT:,FROMGIT:,FROMLIST:, orANDROID:. - All patches must have a
Change-Id:tag (see https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-changeid.html) - If an Android bug has been assigned, there must be a
Bug:tag. - All patches must have a
Signed-off-by:tag by the author and the submitter
Additional requirements are listed below based on patch type
Requirements for backports from mainline Linux: UPSTREAM:, BACKPORT:
- If the patch is a cherry-pick from Linux mainline with no changes at all
- tag the patch subject with
UPSTREAM:. - add upstream commit information with a
(cherry picked from commit ...)line - Example:
- if the upstream commit message is
- tag the patch subject with
important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
- then Joe Smith would upload the patch for the common kernel as
UPSTREAM: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
(cherry picked from commit c31e73121f4c1ec41143423ac6ce3ce6dafdcec1)
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch requires any changes from the upstream version, tag the patch with
BACKPORT:instead ofUPSTREAM:.- use the same tags as
UPSTREAM: - add comments about the changes under the
(cherry picked from commit ...)line - Example:
- use the same tags as
BACKPORT: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
(cherry picked from commit c31e73121f4c1ec41143423ac6ce3ce6dafdcec1)
[joe: Resolved minor conflict in drivers/foo/bar.c ]
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
Requirements for other backports: FROMGIT:, FROMLIST:,
- If the patch has been merged into an upstream maintainer tree, but has not yet
been merged into Linux mainline
- tag the patch subject with
FROMGIT: - add info on where the patch came from as
(cherry picked from commit <sha1> <repo> <branch>). This must be a stable maintainer branch (not rebased, so don't uselinux-nextfor example). - if changes were required, use
BACKPORT: FROMGIT: - Example:
- if the commit message in the maintainer tree is
- tag the patch subject with
important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
- then Joe Smith would upload the patch for the common kernel as
FROMGIT: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
(cherry picked from commit 878a2fd9de10b03d11d2f622250285c7e63deace
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/foo/bar.git test-branch)
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch has been submitted to LKML, but not accepted into any maintainer tree
- tag the patch subject with
FROMLIST: - add a
Link:tag with a link to the submittal on lore.kernel.org - add a
Bug:tag with the Android bug (required for patches not accepted into a maintainer tree) - if changes were required, use
BACKPORT: FROMLIST: - Example:
- tag the patch subject with
FROMLIST: important patch from upstream
This is the detailed description of the important patch
Signed-off-by: Fred Jones <fred.jones@foo.org>
Bug: 135791357
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190619171517.GA17557@someone.com/
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
Requirements for Android-specific patches: ANDROID:
- If the patch is fixing a bug to Android-specific code
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: - add a
Fixes:tag that cites the patch with the bug - Example:
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: fix android-specific bug in foobar.c
This is the detailed description of the important fix
Fixes: 1234abcd2468 ("foobar: add cool feature")
Change-Id: I4caaaa566ea080fa148c5e768bb1a0b6f7201c01
Signed-off-by: Joe Smith <joe.smith@foo.org>
- If the patch is a new feature
- tag the patch subject with
ANDROID: - add a
Bug:tag with the Android bug (required for android-specific features)
- tag the patch subject with