From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lf1-f44.google.com (mail-lf1-f44.google.com [209.85.167.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83ACC7263B for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.44 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774455403; cv=none; b=GC6ttezJMUtdSRQTTGbNCJWs6C6VeyMq3sJQpl9t76OvKVkMrvQPdd/yqPekdbnE0ODvhEvU6VNdEL5B0k5rr2Pzsbr/hkclERM0DX+1KyRb8Rvr++ETpXH1sEQsv7E0LZi+03kJsLYrrQmMPqzjaB10UeGiBggHwR7zwOhcvus= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774455403; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j8L0lyWmHtYhrW0adChWFa9O0SJfBs7VWEXraH8Z3K8=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Nzjnv3CLyv5akKZCJtwn8aNTBZUIYelyA+Vp+ZnvvdCBcof0twZEG//yBPCtA1pHNEzQdUNaWysfQ4qxQHGVaW1chjzanX65HDADL5yL6kGb7sMZz6jkNqst0KrXIrbDRuCtUecyVlOQWxK6pMA3Y4uXCaBUyvgXVHdiDB99uDU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=OHZiBJ0B; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.44 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="OHZiBJ0B" Received: by mail-lf1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5a13a06fc85so120328e87.1 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 09:16:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1774455400; x=1775060200; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mQNkW1E4iLDlDxzhZtGOPx0+whhP6nU11icM6Ww2f1o=; b=OHZiBJ0BKVinHawbp5KVCWz4pONosfxdPTjPNdbDtrq3lxry87TNsfTwbyn746clae s821WINOXO3VtGDN6qIn9dURTxVHBJiQmX1rKQIQOsX/yHyEb0GSsi+5WyQdWWv6XiCh A33I/D55YBIqGhaza/LWALHGjiETYKN8R9LAZvC0uEHu9PsNGOZArAm4qFCVVQyBPUOo gqjKJMzFDMcSYYu88Ei5dj3qSKtqdkuTQTtTK57d0nmJTuibK+rtLlFWEdh8IMZHldrp +qNSBJMaXAeORyYi4dlncauAmqQ7RRt3/rtpYO/p6nyQo4OSfvn9DMLbD8DQgWAFvAP6 Q+kw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1774455400; x=1775060200; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mQNkW1E4iLDlDxzhZtGOPx0+whhP6nU11icM6Ww2f1o=; b=r8MmLW01bYSrZEXxD6dPK8JSrp/qLULL5quPOm6q+8KoqFTlNFLNsfJdy6rqb2EpAq IW8V0zQ5UTwO+ccDBekTFF641lKsLlGBRf1g9DxhvE3LtJOBmC/HLtUrIFMLyhdjLENF tQd+hPli/9T/MiTZDzyjCIGqQM0sBhncXH4rLKDdEzPrs2aZW1F+iVatt4w1Otzl0KMK HQGSbHpTanqp8BYwG0TpzdtKrc3LTRxi2jXkul/s454yeRGYiy+Z0sleAyuCMX4/9dK7 xm2nENoU1pziEZdbuQU6UizfHdqtXHJVOxfzdeDIKHs/ZufNO/5X+dDid4dt3tBjf7BX ShoQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVqW8Fm9QHKKCClHqpiHNH7f1cgs3MrDQRpbPuqhw2VMPBv55TGp5k8XdvkibL+J2MkvOo=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxzrvpMZ/QRr5n6YOom3MYwGzdcSWs1m7W0et342vP27X+7kJO5 qqZq+W+2SbV/I+Wlsh/g+7I6VjczoOH6HGy9niteVqr4EbB1X3Ymbhba X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzyHEChqbstfFn/GatCydwnPLEjNiurXpwlo2EM9+2Z/GNx/KzPckc7lHv/8edQ 3Em2hQN+A4yWmi7H5qGWqkXZzr06c/MvhYIUZGJRL/blLKweamuJrgnkHjsXPMS9ruk/mHGEuHs XiFNmqjVGAOJdnsoAyVi9nXN0wT6MbxLg7NozgUSKuO3/ejwYPrsjX8QwSisx0YzFv57S/ieBL5 tqMzFHUSKcwwXj354JQp6cmJi7ojp8XxDsaaG11/rfb0O8IKzjuAYY8vGTAKu4dl6KJWbI2zYLk s6ojjbsLDbRJ7pVnhrp7biTxu3/vxAJR/TbneVb6o3yrJp158EY1nee4bmLYHBqqJsXS7t/qkdm IOtJTQ8GbpzJLL58yhNzNhl5Zck5jFquts3eXo+JC0TBqUezl4ezgHOWFCkrPjm/m X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:33c6:b0:5a2:7ba1:4932 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5a29b99ef6fmr1703865e87.42.1774455399259; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from milan ([2001:9b1:d5a0:a500::24b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-5a2a064d35esm4117e87.34.2026.03.25.09.16.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 25 Mar 2026 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 17:16:36 +0100 To: Muhammad Usama Anjum Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , Zi Yan , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Liam R . Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Brendan Jackman , Johannes Weiner , Nick Terrell , David Sterba , Vishal Moola , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Ryan.Roberts@arm.com, david.hildenbrand@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] vmalloc: Optimize vfree Message-ID: References: <20260324133538.497616-1-usama.anjum@arm.com> <20260324133538.497616-3-usama.anjum@arm.com> <1D88CFF0-8A74-413F-9A6A-39E27B760AE1@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 03:02:14PM +0000, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 25/03/2026 8:56 am, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 10:55:55AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote: > >> On 24 Mar 2026, at 9:35, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > >> > >>> From: Ryan Roberts > >>> > >>> Whenever vmalloc allocates high order pages (e.g. for a huge mapping) it > >>> must immediately split_page() to order-0 so that it remains compatible > >>> with users that want to access the underlying struct page. > >>> Commit a06157804399 ("mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy > >>> allocator") recently made it much more likely for vmalloc to allocate > >>> high order pages which are subsequently split to order-0. > >>> > >>> Unfortunately this had the side effect of causing performance > >>> regressions for tight vmalloc/vfree loops (e.g. test_vmalloc.ko > >>> benchmarks). See Closes: tag. This happens because the high order pages > >>> must be gotten from the buddy but then because they are split to > >>> order-0, when they are freed they are freed to the order-0 pcp. > >>> Previously allocation was for order-0 pages so they were recycled from > >>> the pcp. > >>> > >>> It would be preferable if when vmalloc allocates an (e.g.) order-3 page > >>> that it also frees that order-3 page to the order-3 pcp, then the > >>> regression could be removed. > >>> > >>> So let's do exactly that; use the new __free_contig_range() API to > >>> batch-free contiguous ranges of pfns. This not only removes the > >>> regression, but significantly improves performance of vfree beyond the > >>> baseline. > >>> > >>> A selection of test_vmalloc benchmarks running on arm64 server class > >>> system. mm-new is the baseline. Commit a06157804399 ("mm/vmalloc: request > >>> large order pages from buddy allocator") was added in v6.19-rc1 where we > >>> see regressions. Then with this change performance is much better. (>0 > >>> is faster, <0 is slower, (R)/(I) = statistically significant > >>> Regression/Improvement): > >>> > >>> +-----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+ > >>> | Benchmark | Result Class | mm-new | this series | > >>> +=================+==========================================================+===================+====================+ > >>> | micromm/vmalloc | fix_align_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 1331843.33 | (I) 67.17% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 415907.33 | -5.14% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:4, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 755448.00 | (I) 53.55% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:16, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 1591331.33 | (I) 57.26% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:16, h:1, l:500000 (usec) | 1594345.67 | (I) 68.46% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:64, h:0, l:100000 (usec) | 1071826.00 | (I) 79.27% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:64, h:1, l:100000 (usec) | 1018385.00 | (I) 84.17% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:256, h:0, l:100000 (usec) | 3970899.67 | (I) 77.01% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:256, h:1, l:100000 (usec) | 3821788.67 | (I) 89.44% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:512, h:0, l:100000 (usec) | 7795968.00 | (I) 82.67% | > >>> | | fix_size_alloc_test: p:512, h:1, l:100000 (usec) | 6530169.67 | (I) 118.09% | > >>> | | full_fit_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 626808.33 | -0.98% | > >>> | | kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 532145.67 | -1.68% | > >>> | | kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 537032.67 | -0.96% | > >>> | | long_busy_list_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 8805069.00 | (I) 74.58% | > >>> | | pcpu_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 500824.67 | 4.35% | > >>> | | random_size_align_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 1637554.67 | (I) 76.99% | > >>> | | random_size_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 4556288.67 | (I) 72.23% | > >>> | | vm_map_ram_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) | 107371.00 | -0.70% | > >>> +-----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+ > >>> > >>> Fixes: a06157804399 ("mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy allocator") > >>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/66919a28-bc81-49c9-b68f-dd7c73395a0d@arm.com/ > >>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts > >>> Co-developed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum > >>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum > >>> --- > >>> Changes since v2: > >>> - Remove BUG_ON in favour of simple implementation as this has never > >>> been seen to output any bug in the past as well > >>> - Move the free loop to separate function, free_pages_bulk() > >>> - Update stats, lruvec_stat in separate loop > >>> > >>> Changes since v1: > >>> - Rebase on mm-new > >>> - Rerun benchmarks > >>> > >>> Made-with: Cursor > >>> --- > >>> include/linux/gfp.h | 2 ++ > >>> mm/page_alloc.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> mm/vmalloc.c | 16 +++++----------- > >>> 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > >>> index 7c1f9da7c8e56..71f9097ab99a0 100644 > >>> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > >>> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > >>> @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ unsigned long alloc_pages_bulk_noprof(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid, > >>> struct page **page_array); > >>> #define __alloc_pages_bulk(...) alloc_hooks(alloc_pages_bulk_noprof(__VA_ARGS__)) > >>> > >>> +void free_pages_bulk(struct page **page_array, unsigned long nr_pages); > >>> + > >>> unsigned long alloc_pages_bulk_mempolicy_noprof(gfp_t gfp, > >>> unsigned long nr_pages, > >>> struct page **page_array); > >>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > >>> index eedce9a30eb7e..250cc07e547b8 100644 > >>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > >>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > >>> @@ -5175,6 +5175,29 @@ unsigned long alloc_pages_bulk_noprof(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid, > >>> } > >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(alloc_pages_bulk_noprof); > >>> > >>> +void free_pages_bulk(struct page **page_array, unsigned long nr_pages) > >>> +{ > >>> + unsigned long start_pfn = 0, pfn; > >>> + unsigned long i, nr_contig = 0; > >>> + > >>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) { > >>> + pfn = page_to_pfn(page_array[i]); > >>> + if (!nr_contig) { > >>> + start_pfn = pfn; > >>> + nr_contig = 1; > >>> + } else if (start_pfn + nr_contig != pfn) { > >>> + __free_contig_range(start_pfn, nr_contig); > >>> + start_pfn = pfn; > >>> + nr_contig = 1; > >>> + cond_resched(); > >> > > It will cause schedule while atomic. Have you checked that > > __free_contig_range() also can sleep? Of so then we are aligned, if not > > probably we should remove it. > Sorry, I didn't get it. How does having cond_resched() in this function > affects __free_contig_range()? > It is not. What i am asking is about: spin_lock(); free_pages_bulk() ... so this is not allowed because there is cond_resched() call. We can remove it and make it possible to invoke free_pages_bulk() under spin-lock, __but__ only if for example other calls do not sleep: __free_contig_range() memdesc_section() free_prepared_contig_range() ... > > The current user of this function is only vfree() which is sleepable. > I know. But this function can be used by others soon or later. Another option is add a comment, saying that it is only for sleepable contexts. -- Uladzislau Rezki