From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] page allocator: Reduce fragmentation in buddy allocator by adding buddies that are merging to the tail of the free lists
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:55:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100104135545.GC6373@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
In order to reduce fragmentation, this patch classifies freed pages in
two groups according to their probability of being part of a high order
merge. Pages belonging to a compound whose next-highest buddy is free are
more likely to be part of a high order merge in the near future, so they
will be added at the tail of the freelist. The remaining pages are put at
the front of the freelist.
In this way, the pages that are more likely to cause a big merge are kept
free longer. Consequently there is a tendency to aggregate the long-living
allocations on a subset of the compounds, reducing the fragmentation.
This heuristic was testing on three machines, x86, x86-64 and ppc64 with
3GB of RAM in each machine. The tests were kernbench, netperf, sysbench and
STREAM for performance and a high-order stress test for huge page allocations.
KernBench X86
Elapsed mean 374.77 ( 0.00%) 375.10 (-0.09%)
User mean 649.53 ( 0.00%) 650.44 (-0.14%)
System mean 54.75 ( 0.00%) 54.18 ( 1.05%)
CPU mean 187.75 ( 0.00%) 187.25 ( 0.27%)
KernBench X86-64
Elapsed mean 94.45 ( 0.00%) 94.01 ( 0.47%)
User mean 323.27 ( 0.00%) 322.66 ( 0.19%)
System mean 36.71 ( 0.00%) 36.50 ( 0.57%)
CPU mean 380.75 ( 0.00%) 381.75 (-0.26%)
KernBench PPC64
Elapsed mean 173.45 ( 0.00%) 173.74 (-0.17%)
User mean 587.99 ( 0.00%) 587.95 ( 0.01%)
System mean 60.60 ( 0.00%) 60.57 ( 0.05%)
CPU mean 373.50 ( 0.00%) 372.75 ( 0.20%)
Nothing notable for kernbench.
NetPerf UDP X86
64 42.68 ( 0.00%) 42.77 ( 0.21%)
128 85.62 ( 0.00%) 85.32 (-0.35%)
256 170.01 ( 0.00%) 168.76 (-0.74%)
1024 655.68 ( 0.00%) 652.33 (-0.51%)
2048 1262.39 ( 0.00%) 1248.61 (-1.10%)
3312 1958.41 ( 0.00%) 1944.61 (-0.71%)
4096 2345.63 ( 0.00%) 2318.83 (-1.16%)
8192 4132.90 ( 0.00%) 4089.50 (-1.06%)
16384 6770.88 ( 0.00%) 6642.05 (-1.94%)*
NetPerf UDP X86-64
64 148.82 ( 0.00%) 154.92 ( 3.94%)
128 298.96 ( 0.00%) 312.95 ( 4.47%)
256 583.67 ( 0.00%) 626.39 ( 6.82%)
1024 2293.18 ( 0.00%) 2371.10 ( 3.29%)
2048 4274.16 ( 0.00%) 4396.83 ( 2.79%)
3312 6356.94 ( 0.00%) 6571.35 ( 3.26%)
4096 7422.68 ( 0.00%) 7635.42 ( 2.79%)*
8192 12114.81 ( 0.00%)* 12346.88 ( 1.88%)
16384 17022.28 ( 0.00%)* 17033.19 ( 0.06%)*
1.64% 2.73%
NetPerf UDP PPC64
64 49.98 ( 0.00%) 50.25 ( 0.54%)
128 98.66 ( 0.00%) 100.95 ( 2.27%)
256 197.33 ( 0.00%) 191.03 (-3.30%)
1024 761.98 ( 0.00%) 785.07 ( 2.94%)
2048 1493.50 ( 0.00%) 1510.85 ( 1.15%)
3312 2303.95 ( 0.00%) 2271.72 (-1.42%)
4096 2774.56 ( 0.00%) 2773.06 (-0.05%)
8192 4918.31 ( 0.00%) 4793.59 (-2.60%)
16384 7497.98 ( 0.00%) 7749.52 ( 3.25%)
The tests are run to have confidence limits within 1%. Results marked with
a * were not confident although in this case, it's only outside by small
amounts. Even with some results that were not confident, the netperf UDP
results were generally positive.
NetPerf TCP X86
64 652.25 ( 0.00%)* 648.12 (-0.64%)*
23.80% 22.82%
128 1229.98 ( 0.00%)* 1220.56 (-0.77%)*
21.03% 18.90%
256 2105.88 ( 0.00%) 1872.03 (-12.49%)*
1.00% 16.46%
1024 3476.46 ( 0.00%)* 3548.28 ( 2.02%)*
13.37% 11.39%
2048 4023.44 ( 0.00%)* 4231.45 ( 4.92%)*
9.76% 12.48%
3312 4348.88 ( 0.00%)* 4396.96 ( 1.09%)*
6.49% 8.75%
4096 4726.56 ( 0.00%)* 4877.71 ( 3.10%)*
9.85% 8.50%
8192 4732.28 ( 0.00%)* 5777.77 (18.10%)*
9.13% 13.04%
16384 5543.05 ( 0.00%)* 5906.24 ( 6.15%)*
7.73% 8.68%
NETPERF TCP X86-64
netperf-tcp-vanilla-netperf netperf-tcp
tcp-vanilla pgalloc-delay
64 1895.87 ( 0.00%)* 1775.07 (-6.81%)*
5.79% 4.78%
128 3571.03 ( 0.00%)* 3342.20 (-6.85%)*
3.68% 6.06%
256 5097.21 ( 0.00%)* 4859.43 (-4.89%)*
3.02% 2.10%
1024 8919.10 ( 0.00%)* 8892.49 (-0.30%)*
5.89% 6.55%
2048 10255.46 ( 0.00%)* 10449.39 ( 1.86%)*
7.08% 7.44%
3312 10839.90 ( 0.00%)* 10740.15 (-0.93%)*
6.87% 7.33%
4096 10814.84 ( 0.00%)* 10766.97 (-0.44%)*
6.86% 8.18%
8192 11606.89 ( 0.00%)* 11189.28 (-3.73%)*
7.49% 5.55%
16384 12554.88 ( 0.00%)* 12361.22 (-1.57%)*
7.36% 6.49%
NETPERF TCP PPC64
netperf-tcp-vanilla-netperf netperf-tcp
tcp-vanilla pgalloc-delay
64 594.17 ( 0.00%) 596.04 ( 0.31%)*
1.00% 2.29%
128 1064.87 ( 0.00%)* 1074.77 ( 0.92%)*
1.30% 1.40%
256 1852.46 ( 0.00%)* 1856.95 ( 0.24%)
1.25% 1.00%
1024 3839.46 ( 0.00%)* 3813.05 (-0.69%)
1.02% 1.00%
2048 4885.04 ( 0.00%)* 4881.97 (-0.06%)*
1.15% 1.04%
3312 5506.90 ( 0.00%) 5459.72 (-0.86%)
4096 6449.19 ( 0.00%) 6345.46 (-1.63%)
8192 7501.17 ( 0.00%) 7508.79 ( 0.10%)
16384 9618.65 ( 0.00%) 9490.10 (-1.35%)
There was a distinct lack of confidence in the X86* figures so I included what
the devation was where the results were not confident. Many of the results,
whether gains or losses were within the standard deviation so no solid
conclusion can be reached on performance impact. Looking at the figures,
only the X86-64 ones look suspicious with a few losses that were outside
the noise. However, the results were so unstable that without knowing why
they vary so much, a solid conclusion cannot be reached.
SYSBENCH X86
sysbench-vanilla pgalloc-delay
1 7722.85 ( 0.00%) 7756.79 ( 0.44%)
2 14901.11 ( 0.00%) 13683.44 (-8.90%)
3 15171.71 ( 0.00%) 14888.25 (-1.90%)
4 14966.98 ( 0.00%) 15029.67 ( 0.42%)
5 14370.47 ( 0.00%) 14865.00 ( 3.33%)
6 14870.33 ( 0.00%) 14845.57 (-0.17%)
7 14429.45 ( 0.00%) 14520.85 ( 0.63%)
8 14354.35 ( 0.00%) 14362.31 ( 0.06%)
SYSBENCH X86-64
1 17448.70 ( 0.00%) 17484.41 ( 0.20%)
2 34276.39 ( 0.00%) 34251.00 (-0.07%)
3 50805.25 ( 0.00%) 50854.80 ( 0.10%)
4 66667.10 ( 0.00%) 66174.69 (-0.74%)
5 66003.91 ( 0.00%) 65685.25 (-0.49%)
6 64981.90 ( 0.00%) 65125.60 ( 0.22%)
7 64933.16 ( 0.00%) 64379.23 (-0.86%)
8 63353.30 ( 0.00%) 63281.22 (-0.11%)
9 63511.84 ( 0.00%) 63570.37 ( 0.09%)
10 62708.27 ( 0.00%) 63166.25 ( 0.73%)
11 62092.81 ( 0.00%) 61787.75 (-0.49%)
12 61330.11 ( 0.00%) 61036.34 (-0.48%)
13 61438.37 ( 0.00%) 61994.47 ( 0.90%)
14 62304.48 ( 0.00%) 62064.90 (-0.39%)
15 63296.48 ( 0.00%) 62875.16 (-0.67%)
16 63951.76 ( 0.00%) 63769.09 (-0.29%)
SYSBENCH PPC64
-sysbench-pgalloc-delay-sysbench
sysbench-vanilla pgalloc-delay
1 7645.08 ( 0.00%) 7467.43 (-2.38%)
2 14856.67 ( 0.00%) 14558.73 (-2.05%)
3 21952.31 ( 0.00%) 21683.64 (-1.24%)
4 27946.09 ( 0.00%) 28623.29 ( 2.37%)
5 28045.11 ( 0.00%) 28143.69 ( 0.35%)
6 27477.10 ( 0.00%) 27337.45 (-0.51%)
7 26489.17 ( 0.00%) 26590.06 ( 0.38%)
8 26642.91 ( 0.00%) 25274.33 (-5.41%)
9 25137.27 ( 0.00%) 24810.06 (-1.32%)
10 24451.99 ( 0.00%) 24275.85 (-0.73%)
11 23262.20 ( 0.00%) 23674.88 ( 1.74%)
12 24234.81 ( 0.00%) 23640.89 (-2.51%)
13 24577.75 ( 0.00%) 24433.50 (-0.59%)
14 25640.19 ( 0.00%) 25116.52 (-2.08%)
15 26188.84 ( 0.00%) 26181.36 (-0.03%)
16 26782.37 ( 0.00%) 26255.99 (-2.00%)
Again, there is little to conclude here. While there are a few losses,
the results vary by +/- 8% in some cases. They are the results of most
concern as there are some large losses but it's also within the variance
typically seen between kernel releases.
The STREAM results varied so little and are so verbose that I didn't
include them here.
The final test stressed how many huge pages can be allocated. The
absolute number of huge pages allocated are the same with or without the
page. However, the "unusability free space index" which is a measure of
external fragmentation was slightly lower (lower is better) throughout the
lifetime of the system. I also measured the latency of how long it took
to successfully allocate a huge page. The latency was slightly lower and
on X86 and PPC64, more huge pages were allocated almost immediately from
the free lists. The improvement is slight but there.
[mel@csn.ul.ie: Tested, reworked for less branches]
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 2bc2ac6..fe7017e 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -451,6 +451,7 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
int migratetype)
{
unsigned long page_idx;
+ unsigned long combined_idx;
if (unlikely(PageCompound(page)))
if (unlikely(destroy_compound_page(page, order)))
@@ -464,7 +465,6 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
VM_BUG_ON(bad_range(zone, page));
while (order < MAX_ORDER-1) {
- unsigned long combined_idx;
struct page *buddy;
buddy = __page_find_buddy(page, page_idx, order);
@@ -481,8 +481,29 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
order++;
}
set_page_order(page, order);
- list_add(&page->lru,
- &zone->free_area[order].free_list[migratetype]);
+
+ /*
+ * If this is not the largest possible page, check if the buddy
+ * of the next-highest order is free. If it is, it's possible
+ * that pages are being freed that will coalesce soon. In case,
+ * that is happening, add the free page to the tail of the list
+ * so it's less likely to be used soon and more likely to be merged
+ * as a higher order page
+ */
+ if (order < MAX_ORDER-1) {
+ struct page *higher_page, *higher_buddy;
+ combined_idx = __find_combined_index(page_idx, order);
+ higher_page = page + combined_idx - page_idx;
+ higher_buddy = __page_find_buddy(higher_page, combined_idx, order + 1);
+ if (page_is_buddy(higher_page, higher_buddy, order + 1)) {
+ list_add_tail(&page->lru,
+ &zone->free_area[order].free_list[migratetype]);
+ goto out;
+ }
+ }
+
+ list_add(&page->lru, &zone->free_area[order].free_list[migratetype]);
+out:
zone->free_area[order].nr_free++;
}
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next reply other threads:[~2010-01-04 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-04 13:55 Mel Gorman [this message]
2010-01-04 14:04 ` [PATCH] page allocator: Reduce fragmentation in buddy allocator by adding buddies that are merging to the tail of the free lists Rik van Riel
2010-01-04 14:05 ` Pekka Enberg
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=20100104135545.GC6373@csn.ul.ie \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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 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).