Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] vmalloc: Optimize vfree

["Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>]

Nit: the subject could be more specific, e.g. like this?

vmalloc: Optimize vfree with free_pages_bulk()

On 3/31/26 17:22, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> 
> 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; update stats separately first as coalescing is
> hard to do correctly without complexity. Use free_pages_bulk() which uses
> 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/
> Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> Co-developed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@arm.com>

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <vbabka@kernel.org>

> +void free_pages_bulk(struct page **page_array, unsigned long nr_pages)
> +{
> +	while (nr_pages) {
> +		unsigned long nr_contig = num_pages_contiguous(page_array, nr_pages);
> +
> +		__free_contig_range(page_to_pfn(*page_array), nr_contig);

I'll note that num_pages_contiguous() already handled crossing the section
boundaries and __free_contig_range() checks them again. But that's fine I
think, we don't have to optimize for !SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP architectures and on
SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP the checks should be compiled out, right.
It would complicate the API otherwise.

> +
> +		nr_pages -= nr_contig;
> +		page_array += nr_contig;
> +		cond_resched();
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * This is the 'heart' of the zoned buddy allocator.
>   */