From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 683A3C4345F for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=ovFpkGfx; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VFlD60rpDz3vsb for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 02:15:34 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=ovFpkGfx; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=2604:1380:40e1:4800::1; helo=sin.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=rppt@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:40e1:4800::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4VFl1763k7z3vr4 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 02:06:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19927CE17B0; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:06:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 949B2C072AA; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:05:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1712851561; bh=iSP5sYQTC9lwrdkyTRCMZ/AI3wIT9Uf2038HZsTjvAE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ovFpkGfxLq3VLtK3zTiOpRiMUuHSj2aiPSN6C/2SRNq664nlaPNpFsB86F1602l7u 7x9tXroJeTOj2P3kWXEbf0cNKeCKXlL5Z4Sc5pYnmQqjo7nYylppKAmPrsG84c3xFC 9NLRnLJz/65Ix26qDiSIpHtq5GstadUuAmNfpX4ftuviQzf7kPayNTFCmqVcxekiXu tOnqW1WH/Bp8QN30gHTwPwqzQE4VIoI2pDvfSao52LnJ/WtUsvjtbqmKqzdjt5jtR4 PNYlFSwbj57Sxuy4SqIdHL9SF2Awen6ZrBqp2ySRFhA1gGw1GOyPWd71dNY53aHmAL ytLAFgcoDjD+A== From: Mike Rapoport To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/7] mm: vmalloc: don't account for number of nodes for HUGE_VMAP allocations Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:05:21 +0300 Message-ID: <20240411160526.2093408-3-rppt@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: <20240411160526.2093408-1-rppt@kernel.org> References: <20240411160526.2093408-1-rppt@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , Song Liu , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Will Deacon , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Helge Deller , x86@kernel.org, Russell King , Christoph Hellwig , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Lorenzo Stoakes , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Luis Chamberlain , Uladzislau Rezki , Palmer Dabbelt , Masami Hiramatsu , linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org , Mike Rapoport Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" vmalloc allocations with VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP that do not explictly specify node ID will use huge pages only if size_per_node is larger than PMD_SIZE. Still the actual allocated memory is not distributed between nodes and there is no advantage in such approach. On the contrary, BPF allocates PMD_SIZE * num_possible_nodes() for each new bpf_prog_pack, while it could do with PMD_SIZE'ed packs. Don't account for number of nodes for VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP with NUMA_NO_NODE and use huge pages whenever the requested allocation size is larger than PMD_SIZE. Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) --- mm/vmalloc.c | 9 ++------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c index 22aa63f4ef63..5fc8b514e457 100644 --- a/mm/vmalloc.c +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c @@ -3737,8 +3737,6 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align, } if (vmap_allow_huge && (vm_flags & VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP)) { - unsigned long size_per_node; - /* * Try huge pages. Only try for PAGE_KERNEL allocations, * others like modules don't yet expect huge pages in @@ -3746,13 +3744,10 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align, * supporting them. */ - size_per_node = size; - if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) - size_per_node /= num_online_nodes(); - if (arch_vmap_pmd_supported(prot) && size_per_node >= PMD_SIZE) + if (arch_vmap_pmd_supported(prot) && size >= PMD_SIZE) shift = PMD_SHIFT; else - shift = arch_vmap_pte_supported_shift(size_per_node); + shift = arch_vmap_pte_supported_shift(size); align = max(real_align, 1UL << shift); size = ALIGN(real_size, 1UL << shift); -- 2.43.0