From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] idr: Use this_cpu_ptr() for percpu_ida
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:59:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130821115941.GA18617@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130821023151.GC4051@kmo-pixel>
Hello, Kent.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 07:31:51PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> All this for a performance improvement of 10x to 50x (or more), for the
> ida sizes I measured.
That's misleading, isn't it? We should see large performance
improvements even without the large pages. What matters more is the
leaf node performance for vast majority of cases and an extra radix
tree layer on top would cover most of whatever is left. Whether to
use high order pages or not only affects the extreme niche use cases
and I don't think going for high order pages to micro optimize those
extreme use cases is the right trade off.
> So I could see your point if we were allocating gobs of vmalloc memory,
> or high order allocations big enough to realistically be problematic (I
> honestly don't think these will be) - but to me, this seems like a
> pretty reasonable tradeoff for those performance gains.
The trade off is made up as the bulk of the performance benefit can be
gained without resorting to high order allocations.
> (And the performance gains do substantially come from using more
> contiguous memory and treating the whole data structure as an array, and
> doing less pointer chasing/looping)
I really have hard time buying that. Let's say you go with single
page leaf node and an extra single page layer on top. How many IDs
are we talking about? For the cases which are most performance
sensitive, this doesn't even matter a bit as percpu caching layer
would be on top anyway. I really don't think the micro optimization
is called for at the cost of high order allocations from low level
tool library.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-21 12:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-07 17:34 IDA/IDR rewrite, percpu ida Kent Overstreet
2013-08-07 17:34 ` [PATCH 03/10] idr: Rewrite ida Kent Overstreet
2013-08-07 20:22 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-07 20:51 ` [PATCH] idr: Document ida tree sections Kent Overstreet
2013-08-09 14:57 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-13 22:13 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-13 22:19 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-13 22:27 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-13 22:44 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-13 22:59 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-13 23:22 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-13 23:51 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-13 23:59 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-15 0:04 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-15 0:22 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-13 22:33 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-07 17:34 ` [PATCH 04/10] idr: Percpu ida Kent Overstreet
2013-08-07 17:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-08-07 18:33 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-07 19:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-08-07 19:57 ` [PATCH] idr: Use this_cpu_ptr() for percpu_ida Kent Overstreet
2013-08-08 14:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-08-20 21:19 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-08-20 21:29 ` Andrew Morton
2013-08-21 2:01 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-21 2:07 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-21 2:31 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-21 11:59 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2013-08-21 21:09 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-21 21:16 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-21 21:24 ` Kent Overstreet
2013-08-21 21:31 ` Tejun Heo
2013-08-21 14:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-08-21 17:49 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-08-21 20:49 ` Andrew Morton
2013-08-22 16:44 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-08-22 16:56 ` Jens Axboe
2013-08-07 17:46 ` [PATCH 05/10] idr: Kill old deprecated idr interfaces Kent Overstreet
2013-08-07 17:46 ` [PATCH 06/10] idr: Rename idr_get_next() -> idr_find_next() Kent Overstreet
2013-08-07 17:46 ` [PATCH 08/10] idr: Reimplement idr on top of ida/radix trees Kent Overstreet
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=20130821115941.GA18617@mtj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=kmo@daterainc.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nab@linux-iscsi.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
/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).