* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] eal/malloc: merge malloc_elems in heap if they are contiguous [not found] <cover.1525341819.git.gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> @ 2018-05-03 10:11 ` Gowrishankar 2018-05-04 9:29 ` Burakov, Anatoly 2018-05-03 10:11 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/2] eal/malloc: fix heap index to correctly insert memseg Gowrishankar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Gowrishankar @ 2018-05-03 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: Anatoly Burakov, dev, Thomas Monjalon, Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan, stable From: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> During malloc heap init, if there are malloc_elems contiguous in virt addresses, they could be merged so that, merged malloc_elem would guarantee larger free memory size than its actual hugepage size, it was created for. Fixes: fafcc11985 ("mem: rework memzone to be allocated by malloc") Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c index 267a4c6..1cacf7f 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c @@ -213,7 +213,9 @@ { struct rte_mem_config *mcfg = rte_eal_get_configuration()->mem_config; unsigned ms_cnt; - struct rte_memseg *ms; + struct rte_memseg *ms, *prev_ms = NULL; + struct malloc_elem *elem, *prev_elem; + int ret; if (mcfg == NULL) return -1; @@ -222,6 +224,32 @@ (ms_cnt < RTE_MAX_MEMSEG) && (ms->len > 0); ms_cnt++, ms++) { malloc_heap_add_memseg(&mcfg->malloc_heaps[ms->socket_id], ms); + elem = (struct malloc_elem *)ms->addr; + if (prev_ms != NULL && \ + (ms->socket_id == prev_ms->socket_id)) { + prev_elem = (struct malloc_elem *)prev_ms->addr; + + /* prev_elem and elem to be contiguous for the resize. + Other wise look for prev_elem in iterations */ + if (elem != RTE_PTR_ADD(prev_elem, + prev_elem->size + MALLOC_ELEM_OVERHEAD)) { + prev_ms = ms; + continue; + } + /* end BUSY elem pointed by prev_elem can be merged + with prev_elem itself, as it expands it size now. + */ + prev_elem->size += MALLOC_ELEM_OVERHEAD; + + /* preserve end BUSY elem that points to current elem, + or else free_list will be broken */ + ret = malloc_elem_resize(prev_elem, + prev_elem->size + elem->size - MALLOC_ELEM_OVERHEAD); + if (ret < 0) + prev_elem = elem; + } else { + prev_ms = ms; + } } return 0; -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] eal/malloc: merge malloc_elems in heap if they are contiguous 2018-05-03 10:11 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] eal/malloc: merge malloc_elems in heap if they are contiguous Gowrishankar @ 2018-05-04 9:29 ` Burakov, Anatoly 2018-05-04 10:41 ` gowrishankar muthukrishnan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Burakov, Anatoly @ 2018-05-04 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gowrishankar, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy; +Cc: dev, Thomas Monjalon, stable On 03-May-18 11:11 AM, Gowrishankar wrote: > From: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > During malloc heap init, if there are malloc_elems contiguous in > virt addresses, they could be merged so that, merged malloc_elem > would guarantee larger free memory size than its actual hugepage > size, it was created for. > > Fixes: fafcc11985 ("mem: rework memzone to be allocated by malloc") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- Hi Gowrishankar, I haven't looked at the patchset in detail yet, however i have a general question: how do we end up with VA-contiguous memsegs that are not part of the same memseg in the first place? Is there something wrong with memseg sorting code? Alternatively, if they were broken up, presumably they were broken up for a reason, namely while they may be VA contiguous, they weren't IOVA-contiguous. Can you provide a dump of physmem layout where memory would have been VA and IOVA-contiguous while belonging to different memsegs? -- Thanks, Anatoly ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] eal/malloc: merge malloc_elems in heap if they are contiguous 2018-05-04 9:29 ` Burakov, Anatoly @ 2018-05-04 10:41 ` gowrishankar muthukrishnan 2018-05-04 11:02 ` Burakov, Anatoly 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: gowrishankar muthukrishnan @ 2018-05-04 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Burakov, Anatoly, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: dev, Thomas Monjalon, stable, Chao Zhu Hi Anatoly, On Friday 04 May 2018 02:59 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 03-May-18 11:11 AM, Gowrishankar wrote: >> From: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> During malloc heap init, if there are malloc_elems contiguous in >> virt addresses, they could be merged so that, merged malloc_elem >> would guarantee larger free memory size than its actual hugepage >> size, it was created for. >> >> Fixes: fafcc11985 ("mem: rework memzone to be allocated by malloc") >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >> >> Signed-off-by: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan >> <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- > > Hi Gowrishankar, > > I haven't looked at the patchset in detail yet, however i have a > general question: how do we end up with VA-contiguous memsegs that are > not part of the same memseg in the first place? Is there something > wrong with memseg sorting code? Alternatively, if > they were broken up, presumably they were broken up for a reason, > namely while they may be VA contiguous, they weren't IOVA-contiguous. In powerpc, when *nr_overcommit_hugepages set* (to respect address hint in get_virtual_area() as requested by secondary process), mmap() would not be allocate one big VA chunk for all the available hugepages. In order to support secondary process be in same VA range, we need to add anonymous and hugetlb flags in mmap calls while remapping. As mmap can only create max VA at the size of hugepage (MAP_HUGETLB) and also to respect address hint (MAP_ANONYMOUS), multiple VA chunks are created, even though both VA and IOVA are contiguous in most of the cases. > > Can you provide a dump of physmem layout where memory would have been > VA and IOVA-contiguous while belonging to different memsegs? Please find here: https://pastebin.com/tDNEaxdU As you notice malloc_heaps, its index for heap size is 8 which is supposedly 11. To note, these are not problems with memory rework done in latest code base. So, I refered code until v18.02. -- Regards, Gowrishankar M ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] eal/malloc: merge malloc_elems in heap if they are contiguous 2018-05-04 10:41 ` gowrishankar muthukrishnan @ 2018-05-04 11:02 ` Burakov, Anatoly 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Burakov, Anatoly @ 2018-05-04 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gowrishankar muthukrishnan, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: dev, Thomas Monjalon, stable, Chao Zhu On 04-May-18 11:41 AM, gowrishankar muthukrishnan wrote: > Hi Anatoly, > > On Friday 04 May 2018 02:59 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >> On 03-May-18 11:11 AM, Gowrishankar wrote: >>> From: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> >>> During malloc heap init, if there are malloc_elems contiguous in >>> virt addresses, they could be merged so that, merged malloc_elem >>> would guarantee larger free memory size than its actual hugepage >>> size, it was created for. >>> >>> Fixes: fafcc11985 ("mem: rework memzone to be allocated by malloc") >>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan >>> <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> --- >> >> Hi Gowrishankar, >> >> I haven't looked at the patchset in detail yet, however i have a >> general question: how do we end up with VA-contiguous memsegs that are >> not part of the same memseg in the first place? Is there something >> wrong with memseg sorting code? Alternatively, if they were broken up, >> presumably they were broken up for a reason, namely while they may be >> VA contiguous, they weren't IOVA-contiguous. > > In powerpc, when *nr_overcommit_hugepages set* (to respect address hint > in get_virtual_area() as requested by secondary process), mmap() would > not be allocate one big VA chunk for all the available hugepages. In > order to support secondary process be in same VA > range, we need to add anonymous and hugetlb flags in mmap calls while > remapping. As mmap can only create max VA at the size of hugepage > (MAP_HUGETLB) and also to respect address hint (MAP_ANONYMOUS), multiple > VA chunks are created, even though both VA and IOVA are contiguous in > most of the cases. OK, suppose on PPC64, that may happen. Still (and please correct me if i'm misunderstanding the patchset - as i said, i haven't looked at it in detail, and have only taken a cursory look), there are two issues i see here: 1) there's no check for IOVA-contiguousness, only VA-contiguousness, which means you are risking accidentally concatenating segments that aren't IOVA-contiguous. Prior to 18.05, the rest of DPDK expects all segments to be VA- and IOVA-contiguous. 2) i don't think this problem should be solved in malloc. Malloc elements have memseg pointers in them, and if you concatenate multiple segments, you will end up having malloc elements which point to wrong segments. Instead, you should fix memseg allocation code to do concatenate seemingly disparate segments, and avoid the problem with malloc elements in the first place. Maybe do another sorting pass, or something. In any case, memseg allocation code is the correct place to fix this, IMO. > >> >> Can you provide a dump of physmem layout where memory would have been >> VA and IOVA-contiguous while belonging to different memsegs? > > Please find here: https://pastebin.com/tDNEaxdU > > As you notice malloc_heaps, its index for heap size is 8 which is > supposedly 11. That's a bit hard to read. There's a rte_eal_dump_physmem_layout() function that should help display this in a more user-friendly manner :) > > To note, these are not problems with memory rework done in latest code > base. So, I refered code until v18.02. > -- Thanks, Anatoly ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/2] eal/malloc: fix heap index to correctly insert memseg [not found] <cover.1525341819.git.gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 2018-05-03 10:11 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] eal/malloc: merge malloc_elems in heap if they are contiguous Gowrishankar @ 2018-05-03 10:11 ` Gowrishankar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Gowrishankar @ 2018-05-03 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: Anatoly Burakov, dev, Thomas Monjalon, Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan, stable From: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> When there are multiple memsegs created and adding new memseg would cause bigger heap size, its index in free_head list should be based on new size of heap. Currently, only the size of elem is accounted as in malloc_elem_free_list_insert. As heap total size gets bigger, list of those memsegs should be at the right index, so that malloc_heap_alloc would find suitable element for the requested memory size by applications. Fixes: b0489e7bca ("malloc: fix linear complexity") Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Eg. Below heap is in one numa socket, for the size of 1G (i.e 64*16MB). All corresponding malloc_elem are always added in heap index 8, as their size is always 16MB (and due to which, index is also 8 always). free_head = {{lh_first = 0x0}, {lh_first = 0x0}, {lh_first = 0x0}, { lh_first = 0x0}, {lh_first = 0x0}, {lh_first = 0x0}, {lh_first = 0x0}, { lh_first = 0x0}, {lh_first = 0x7efd3f000000}, {lh_first = 0x0}, {lh_first = 0x0}, { lh_first = 0x0}, {lh_first = 0x0}}, alloc_count = 6, total_size = 1073733632}, Ideally, this list of memsegs should ideally be at slot 12, as they grow heap for 1G. --- lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c index 1cacf7f..f686e5e 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c @@ -105,10 +105,32 @@ ms->len - MALLOC_ELEM_OVERHEAD); end_elem = RTE_PTR_ALIGN_FLOOR(end_elem, RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE); const size_t elem_size = (uintptr_t)end_elem - (uintptr_t)start_elem; + size_t cur_idx, new_idx, heap_size; malloc_elem_init(start_elem, heap, ms, elem_size); malloc_elem_mkend(end_elem, start_elem); + + /* Compare heap index based on its current size as well as + * its new size with memseg added. If new size needs new index + * move its free_head to the new slot. + */ + cur_idx = malloc_elem_free_list_index(heap->total_size); + heap_size = heap->total_size + elem_size; + new_idx = malloc_elem_free_list_index(heap_size); + if (cur_idx != new_idx) { + heap->free_head[new_idx] = heap->free_head[cur_idx]; + memset(&heap->free_head[cur_idx], + 0, sizeof(heap->free_head[cur_idx])); + } + + /* malloc_elem_free_list_insert calculates index based on + * elem->size, hence we set elem->size as new heap size, + * while inserting this elem. After that, we reset elem->size + * to its original value. A minor hack though!. + */ + start_elem->size = heap_size; malloc_elem_free_list_insert(start_elem); + start_elem->size = elem_size; heap->total_size += elem_size; } -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-04 11:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <cover.1525341819.git.gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 2018-05-03 10:11 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] eal/malloc: merge malloc_elems in heap if they are contiguous Gowrishankar 2018-05-04 9:29 ` Burakov, Anatoly 2018-05-04 10:41 ` gowrishankar muthukrishnan 2018-05-04 11:02 ` Burakov, Anatoly 2018-05-03 10:11 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/2] eal/malloc: fix heap index to correctly insert memseg Gowrishankar
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).