From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy allocator
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 18:12:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aPEZdHJlNOofy5tm@milan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aO9pUS3zLHsap81f@fedora>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 02:28:49AM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 04:56:42AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Running 1000 iterations of allocations on a small 4GB system finds:
> > >
> > > 1000 2mb allocations:
> > > [Baseline] [This patch]
> > > real 46.310s real 34.380s
> > > user 0.001s user 0.008s
> > > sys 46.058s sys 34.152s
> > >
> > > 10000 200kb allocations:
> > > [Baseline] [This patch]
> > > real 56.104s real 43.946s
> > > user 0.001s user 0.003s
> > > sys 55.375s sys 43.259s
> > >
> > > 10000 20kb allocations:
> > > [Baseline] [This patch]
> > > real 0m8.438s real 0m9.160s
> > > user 0m0.001s user 0m0.002s
> > > sys 0m7.936s sys 0m8.671s
> >
> > I'd be more confident in the 20kB numbers if you'd done 10x more
> > iterations.
>
> I actually ran my a number of times to mitigate the effects of possibly
> too small sample sizes, so I do have that number for you too:
>
> [Baseline] [This patch]
> real 1m28.119s real 1m32.630s
> user 0m0.012s user 0m0.011s
> sys 1m23.270s sys 1m28.529s
>
I have just had a look at performance figures of this patch. The test
case is 16K allocation by one single thread, 1 000 000 loops, 10 run:
sudo ./test_vmalloc.sh run_test_mask=1 nr_threads=1 nr_pages=4
BOX: AMD Milan, 256 CPUs, 512GB of memory
# default 16K alloc
[ 15.823704] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 955334 usec
[ 17.751685] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1158739 usec
[ 19.443759] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1016522 usec
[ 21.035701] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 911381 usec
[ 22.727688] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 987286 usec
[ 24.199694] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 955112 usec
[ 25.755675] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 926393 usec
[ 27.355670] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 937875 usec
[ 28.979671] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1006985 usec
[ 30.531674] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 941088 usec
# the patch 16K alloc
[ 44.343380] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2296849 usec
[ 47.171290] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2014678 usec
[ 50.007258] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2094184 usec
[ 52.651141] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1953046 usec
[ 55.455089] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2209423 usec
[ 57.943153] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1941747 usec
[ 60.799043] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2038504 usec
[ 63.299007] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1788588 usec
[ 65.843011] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2137055 usec
[ 68.647031] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2193022 usec
2X slower.
perf-cycles, same test but on 64 CPUs:
+ 97.02% 0.13% [test_vmalloc] [k] fix_size_alloc_test
- 82.11% 82.10% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
26.19% ret_from_fork_asm
ret_from_fork
- kthread
- 25.96% test_func
- fix_size_alloc_test
- 23.49% __vmalloc_node_noprof
- __vmalloc_node_range_noprof
- 54.70% alloc_pages_noprof
alloc_pages_mpol
__alloc_frozen_pages_noprof
get_page_from_freelist
__rmqueue_pcplist
- 5.58% __get_vm_area_node
alloc_vmap_area
- 20.54% vfree.part.0
- 20.43% __free_frozen_pages
free_frozen_page_commit
free_pcppages_bulk
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave
native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
- 0.77% worker_thread
- process_one_work
- 0.76% vmstat_update
refresh_cpu_vm_stats
decay_pcp_high
free_pcppages_bulk
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave
native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
+ 76.57% 0.16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
+ 71.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] __vmalloc_node_noprof
+ 71.61% 0.58% [kernel] [k] __vmalloc_node_range_noprof
+ 62.35% 0.06% [kernel] [k] alloc_pages_mpol
+ 62.27% 0.17% [kernel] [k] __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof
+ 62.20% 0.02% [kernel] [k] alloc_pages_noprof
+ 62.10% 0.05% [kernel] [k] get_page_from_freelist
+ 55.63% 0.19% [kernel] [k] __rmqueue_pcplist
+ 32.11% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork_asm
+ 32.11% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork
+ 32.11% 0.00% [kernel] [k] kthread
I would say the bottle-neck is a page-allocator. It seems high-order
allocations are not good for it.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-16 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-14 18:27 [RFC PATCH] mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy allocator Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-10-15 3:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-10-15 9:28 ` Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-10-16 16:12 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2025-10-16 17:42 ` Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-10-16 19:02 ` Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-10-17 16:15 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-10-17 17:19 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-10-20 18:23 ` Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-10-15 8:23 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-10-15 10:44 ` Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-10-15 12:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-10-15 13:42 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-10-16 6:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-16 11:53 ` Uladzislau Rezki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aPEZdHJlNOofy5tm@milan \
--to=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=vishal.moola@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.