From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy allocator
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 18:15:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aPJrmdeQY1QvbVdc@milan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aPFBY_OtG0YTAaHv@fedora>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 12:02:59PM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 10:42:04AM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > The reason I didn't use this test module is the same concern Matthew
> > brought up earlier about testing the PCP list rather than buddy
> > allocator. The test module allocates, then frees over and over again,
> > making it incredibly prone to reuse the pages over and over again.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Ah also just took a closer look at this. I realize that you also did 16k
> allocations (which is at most order-2), so it may not be a good
> representation of high-order allocations either.
>
I agree. But then we should not optimize "small" orders and focus on
highest ones. Because of double degrade. I assume stress-ng fork test
would alos notice this.
> Plus that falls into the regression range I found that I detailed in
> response to Matthew elsewhere (I've copy pasted it here for reference)
>
> I ended up finding that allocating sizes <=20k had noticeable
> regressions, while [20k, 90k] was approximately the same, and >= 90k had
> improvements (getting more and more noticeable as size grows in
> magnitude).
>
Yes, i did 2-order allocations
# default
+ 35.87% 4.24% [kernel] [k] alloc_pages_bulk_noprof
+ 31.94% 0.88% [kernel] [k] vfree.part.0
- 27.38% 27.36% [kernel] [k] clear_page_rep
27.36% ret_from_fork_asm
ret_from_fork
kthread
test_func
fix_size_alloc_test
__vmalloc_node_noprof
__vmalloc_node_range_noprof
alloc_pages_bulk_noprof
clear_page_rep
# patch
+ 53.32% 1.12% [kernel] [k] get_page_from_freelist
+ 49.41% 0.71% [kernel] [k] prep_new_page
- 48.70% 48.64% [kernel] [k] clear_page_rep
48.64% ret_from_fork_asm
ret_from_fork
kthread
test_func
fix_size_alloc_test
__vmalloc_node_noprof
__vmalloc_node_range_noprof
alloc_pages_noprof
alloc_pages_mpol
__alloc_frozen_pages_noprof
get_page_from_freelist
prep_new_page
clear_page_rep
i noticed it is because of clear_page_rep() which with patch consumes
double in cycles.
Both versions should mostly go over pcp-cache, as far as i remember
order-2 is allowed to be cached.
I wounder why the patch gives x2 of cycles to clear_page_rep()...
--
Uladzislau Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-17 16:15 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
2025-10-16 17:42 ` Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-10-16 19:02 ` Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-10-17 16:15 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
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=aPJrmdeQY1QvbVdc@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.